D"<<e   University   Libraries 

A  vindication  o 
Conf  Pam  #636 


^'''^0^7035? 


A    VINDICATION 


SECESSION  AND  THE  SOUTH 


FROM   THE 


STRICTURES  OF  REV.  R.  J.  BRECKINRIDGE,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 


DANVILLE  QUARTERLY  REVIEW. 


By  b.  m.  pal:mee,  D.  D., 

NEW   ORLEANS,   LA. 


[PKOM    THE   SOUTHERN  PEESBTTERIAN   EEVTEW  FOR  APRIL,  1861.] 


COLUMBIA,    S.  C: 

SOUTHERN  GUARDIAN  STEAM-POWER  PRESS. 

1861. 


CcS* 
S6  5" 


^ 


A   VINDICATIOJf 


SECESSIOI  AID   THE   SOUTH. 


Discourse  delivered  hy  Rev.  Dr.  R.  J.  Breckinridge,  on  the 
day  of  National  Humiliation,  January  4^/i,  1861,  at  Lexing- 
ton, Ky. 

Our  Country :  its  Peril,  and  its  Deliverance.  From  advance 
sheets  of  the  Danville  Quarterly  Review  for  3Iarch,  1861. 
By  the  Rev.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge,  D.  J).,  LL.  D., 
Professor  ia  Danville  Theological  Seminary. 

Perhaps  no  writer  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  more 
entitled  to  a  respectful  hearing  upon  the  questions  which 
now  agitate  and  divide  the  country,  than  the  author  of  the 
two  pamphlets  whose  titles  are  given  above.  The  studies 
and  pursuits  of  his  early  manhood  were  precisely  such  as 
to  acquaint  him  with  the  subjects  involved;  while  his  great 
intellect,  which  has  never  faltered  in  any  investigation,  is 
fully  competent  to  grasp  the  nature  of  parties,  to  expound 
the  principles  upon  which  they  are  formed,  and  to  depict 
the  results  to  which  they  naturally  tend.  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing, therefore,  that  the  Danville  Quarterly  should  signalize 
its  advent  into  the  circle  of  periodical  literature  by  an 
elaborate  political  essay  from  the  pen  of  its  most  distin- 


4  A   Vindication  of 

guished  editor,  nor  that  this  production  should  be  selected 
and  sent  forth  as  an  avcoit  courier  to  herald  its  approach. 
When,  too,  the  newspaper  press  announced  the  topics 
through  which  the  discussion  would  range,  public  expecta- 
tion was  raised  on  tiptoe,  prepared  for  a  disquisition  very 
far  above  the  ordinary  level  of  political  harangues.  Under 
an  arrangement  of  subjects  at  once  philosophical  and  ex- 
haustive, such  a  thinker  as  Dr.  Breckinridge  might,  if  any 
one  could,  offer  a  solution  of  existing  political  problems. 
Considering,  further,  the  position  of  Kentucky  in  the 
struggle  now  pending,  one  could  not  but  be  curious  to  see 
the  middle  ground  which  Danville  should  occupy  between 
Princeton  and  Columbia;  between  the  defence  of  Black 
Republicanism,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  advocacy  of 
Secession  on  the  other.  It  would  be  unjust  to  say  that  these 
anticipations  have  been  wholly  disappointed ;  for  upon 
ever}^  'page  the  characteristics  of  the  author's,  mind  are 
clearly  impressed.  Of  no  living  writer  can  it  be  said  with 
more  emphasis,  in  the  language  of  Milton,  that  his  books 
"preserve  as  in  a  vial  the  purest  efficacy  and  extraction  of 
that  living  intellect  that  bred  them."  Yet,  after  all,  we 
are  constrained  to  say  that,  viewing  it  as  a  whole,  we  have 
laid  this  pamphlet  down,  after  a  third  perusal,  with  a  feel- 
ing of  disappointment  raised  to  the  third  degree.  As  a 
great  State  paper,  explaining  either  the  way  by  which  the 
country  has  become  involved  in  its  present  entanglements, 
or  solving  the  method  of  its  extrication,  it  falls  immeasura- 
bly below  what  might  have  been  expected  from  the  source 
whence  it  is  derived.  Aside  from  the  glittering  generalities 
in  which  it  abounds,  and  uncovered  of  the  dogmatism  in 
which  it  is  enveloped,  it  simply  revives,  in  its  boldest  and 
most  offensive  form,  the  doctrine  of  a  consolidated  nation- 
ality held  by  the  old  Federalists ;  and  proceeds,  upon  this 
view,  to  counsel  the  Government  at  Washington,  temper- 
ately, but  with  parental  firmness,  to  chasten  into  submission 
seven  refractory  sovereignties  !     We  can  imagine  the  smile 


Secession  and  the  South.  5 

stealing  over  the  visage  of  some  experienced  statesman  at 
the  temerity  with  which  this  exploded  political  heresy  is 
revived ;  and  at  the  coolness  with  which  the  opposite  theory 
is  ignored,  which,  nevertheless,  has  generally  prevailed 
through  the  history  of  American  legislation  to  the  present 
time.  When  so  fertile  a  mind  as  that  of  this  eminent 
Divine  can  sns-o-est  nothino;  to  meet  the  exis-encies  of  the 
Union  but  what  is  contained  in  this  pamphlet,  it  is  fair  to 
conclude  the  bottom  of  the  argument  on  that  side  to  be 
reached.  And  if  a  decisive  proof  is  required  to  show  the 
necessity  of  the  great  revolution  which  has  taken  place  at 
the  South,  it  is  furnished  in  this  final  argument,  which 
constructs  for  the  whole  country  a  despotism  as  over- 
whelming and  hopeless  as  any  which  has  bowed  down  and 
broken  the  spirit  of  man  in  any  age  or  portion  of  the 
world. 

We  shall  endeavor  to  make  these  positions  good  in  the 
following  pages.  Dr.  Breckinridge  is  too  old  a  polemic  to 
hope,  in  a  time  of  deep  agitation,  like  the  present,  that  any 
ex  cathedra  pronunciation  of  his  opinions  can  shield  them 
from  scrutiny.  He  ma}'  rest  assured,  however,  that  no 
expression  shall  consciously^  fall  from  this  pen,  inconsistent 
with  that  profound  respect  in  which  his  genius  and  reputa- 
tion have  been  held  by  the  writer  for  more  than  twenty 
years. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  be  able  to  judge  of  the  fair- 
ness and  sufficiency  of  this  rejoinder,  it  will  be  necessary 
to  present  an  analysis  of  the  pamphlet  under  review.  Like 
a  true  philosopher,  Dr.  Breckinridge  begins  with  the 
beginning.  In  tracing  the  perils  of  the  country,  he  can  of 
course  rise  no  higher  than  to  the  "spirit  of  anarchy,"  of 
which  they  are  all  begotten ;  which  is  accordingly  made 
the^Vs^  of  his  five  divisions.  This  spirit  of  anarchy  com- 
menced with  the  Abolition  party ;  existing  only  as  a  fanati- 
cism, from  which  it  speedily  rose  to  the  dignity  of  a  State 
principle,  in  the  liberty  bills  which  were  afterwards  enacted 


6  A  .  Vindication  of 

— mounting  at  length  to  tlie  highest  national  importance, 
by  dividing  the  whole  nation  into  two  opposite  parties — 
and,  finally,  upon  Mr.  Lincoln's  election,  reaching  its  con- 
summation in  the  secession  of  seven  States  from  the  Fed- 
eral Union.  Amidst  this  chaos,  the  author  proceeds,  in  his 
second  leading  division,  to  consider  whether  there  remains 
any  ground  for  hope  and  effort.  From  a  number  of  facts 
rapidly  grouped  together,  such  as  that  a  large  minority  in 
the  IsTorth  is  thoroughly  opposed  to  the  distinctive  princi- 
ples of  the  Republican  party,  that  many  who  voted  for  Mr. 
Lincoln,  are  far  more  Whigs  and  Americans  than  Republi- 
cans, that  many  Republicans  themselves  are  patriotic  men, 
who,  upon  any  clear  issue,  will  not  hesitate  to  sacrifice 
their  party  to  their  country ;  from  these  facts,  he  infers  a 
speedy  and  certain  revolution  in  the  N'orthern  mind,  which 
will  sweep  from  power  the  anarchists  who  have  brought 
the  country  to  the  verge  of  ruin.  In  like  manner,  assum- 
ing that  the  secession  of  the  Cotton  States  has  not  been, 
as  to  the  popular  masses,  either  spontaneous  or  cordial, 
but  the  result  of  an  organized  conspiracy,  which  has 
harried  those  States  along  by  a  sudden  and  irresistible 
current  of  opinion,  he  predicts  a  corresponding  reaction  at 
the  South  ;  so  that  if  the  border  slave  States  shall  remain 
steadfast  in  their  loyalty  to  the  Union,  "  the  secession 
movement  must  prove  a  failure,  both  as  to  its  avowed  and 
as  to  any  concealed  object."  To  guard  against  the  defec- 
tion of  these,  certain  "immense  considerations"  are  pre- 
sented ;  in  the  statement  of  v/hich  we  have  a  very  distinct 
enunciation  ot  the  author's  Federal  creed.  This  argument 
is  enforced  by  the  two  additional  considerations,  that  "  this 
blind  and  fierce  spirit  of  anarchy  "  is  "in  frightful  antago- 
nism to  the  total  civilization  of  the  age,"  as  well  as  to 
"the  dominion  and  purpose  of  God  over  and  concern- 
ing our  country,"  which  is  neither,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
slavery  should  be  extinguished,  nor,  on  the  other,  that  it 
should  be  perpetuated.     So  endeth  the  second  lesson. 


Secession  and  the  South.  7 

The  question  of  negro  slavery  being  tlie  occasion,  at 
least,  if  not  the  canse,  of  these  commotions,  it  becomes 
necessary,  in  the  third  chapter,  to  consider  whether  any 
riew  of  it  can  be  presented,  upon  which  the  whole  coun- 
try should  harmonize.  "  It  may  be  discussed  in  the  light 
of  divine  revelatidn,  or  in  the  light  of  the  law  of  nature, 
or  in  the  light  of  the  political  and  municipal  institutions 
of  the  countries  where  it  exists."  In  this  last  aspect,  the 
author  atfirms  "  there  ought  to  be  no  dispute  concerning 
it,"  it  being  strictly  a  domestic  institution,  with  which  no 
State  nor  the  General  Government  may  interfere  in  any 
wise — every  plea  to  the  contrary  being  immoral  in  itself, 
and  revolutionary  in  its  tendency. 

As  regards  the  law  of  nature,  the  grand  difficulty  occurs 
of  interpreting  its  utterances,  as  made  by  the  human  reason, 
by  the  common  imjndses  of  the  human  soul,  by  the  common 
opinion  and  belief  of  the  race,  and  by  the  actual  execution  of 
the  law,  in  the  common  state  of  that  race  in  all  ages.  But 
"human  reason,"  the  author  concludes,  "lands  the  prob- 
lem very  nearly  in  a  paradox."  The  common  impulse  of 
the  soul  towards  freedom  "  is  no  evidence  that  restraint  is 
wrong,"  and  "fails  of  proving  that  they  who  cherish  it 
would  do  aught  but  mischief,"  if  it  were  universally  grat- 
ified. K,  again,  "  it  was  the  common  belief  of  the  race, 
that  servitude  was  contrary  to  the  nature  of  man,  then  the 
race  had  before  it  alway^,  in  the  actual  condition  of  a  larger 
part,  the  clearest  proof  that  the  belief  was  absurd."  And 
finally,  the  testimony  from  the"  actual  execution  of  the  law 
is  frightful  and  universal,  to  wit :  that  "  all,  every  where, 
have  felt  themselves  to  be  naturally  impelled  to  reduce 
each  other  into  a  condition  of  subjection."  From  these 
confused,  and  perhaps  "contradictory  utterances,"  it  only 
remains  to  turn  to  "  the  Word  of  God,  where  this  great 
problem  is  completely  solved."  In  the  light  of  this  Book, 
Dr.  Breckinridge  considers  "human  servitude,  in  all  its 
forms,  as  one  of  the  badges  of  the  fallen  condition  of  the 


8  A  Vindication  of 

human  race,"  and  incident  to  man  in  a  state  of  probation- 
ary discipline  as  a  sinner.  Like  war  and  sickness,  and 
sorrow  and  poverty,  and  pain  and  affliction,  wMch  are  evils 
incident  to  man's  fallen  state,  and  often  sanctified  and 
converted  into  blessings,  so  servitude  exists  "  because  our 
condition  is  just  what  it  is,  a  condition  of  sin  and  misery  in 
a  state  of  probation,"  and  "  utterly  incapable  of  being  per- 
manently and  universally  abolished,  while  this  state  of  sin 
and  misery  continues  attended  with  probation."  "  Through- 
out the  total  revelation  which  Grod  has  made  to  man,  under 
the  dispensations  of  Abraham,  of  Moses,  and  of  Christ, 
embracing  human  servitude  as  it  is,  Abrahamic,  Jewish, 
Christian  and  heathen — and  the  heathen  aspect  of  it  pre- 
sented in  every  nation  of  antiquity,  Asiatic,  African  and 
European ;  in  not  a  single  instance  is  it  represented  as  a 
thing  good  in  itself,  or  as  a  thing  sinful  in  itself,  but  always 
as  a  thing  actually  existing,  always  to  be  expected,  allowed 
by  God,  considered  and  treated  in  His  law,  regulated  by 
His  providence,  wholly  indifferent  as  concerning  His  grace, 
and  to  enter  into  our  final  account  with  Him,  both  as  we 
may  be  masters  and  as  we  may  be  servants."  The  final 
inference  is,  that  God's  Word,  being  the  only  source  from 
which  a  positive  and  safe  judgment  can  be  formed,  "con- 
demns all  the  pretexts  concerning  negro  slavery,  whether 
at  the  E'orth  or  the  South,  upon  which  the  public  mind 
has  been  lashed  into  madness." 

Plainly,  if  these  conclusions  shall  be  universally  accepted, 
there  is  no  reason  why  the  question  of  slavery  should  de- 
stroy the  integrity  of  the  country.  The  way  is  then  open 
for  the  author,  in  his  fourth  section,  to  submit  a  project  for 
an  amicable  settlement. 

Believing  the  Federal  Constitution  to  recognize  property 
in  slaves,  and  to  provide  for  the  return  of  such  as  escape 
from  service,  and  firmly  persuaded  of  the  equality  of  the 
States  in  the  Union,  and  especially  as  that  bears  upon  the 
question   of  slavery  in  the  Territories,  these    two    points 


Secession  and  the  South.  9 

offer  a  clear  basis  for  tins  settlement.  In  what  practicable 
form  tins  common  right  to  a  common  property  shall  be 
recognized,  is  rather  intimated  than  formally  expressed. 
But  as  all  the  Territories  can  not  be  made  wholly  free,  nor 
wholly  slave,  without  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  no  alter- 
native remains  but  an  equitable  division  of  the  common 
domain,  founded  upon  the  recognition  of  a  common  inher- 
itance. 

As,  however,  the  concession  of  both  these  points  must  be 
made  by  the  Xorth,  which  has  the  numerical  majority, 
what  hope  is  there  of  inducing  her  to  consent  to  the  same 
in  the  face  of  the  Personal  Liberty  Bills  passed  in  many 
of  the  States,  and  in  opposition  to  the  dogma  upon  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  comes  into  power,  the  repression  of  slavery 
within  the  Territories  ?  The  considerations  which  Dr. 
Breckinridge  urges  to  induce  the  acceptance  of  these  terms, 
are  as  follows  :  "  That  Avitli  the  Xorth  the  whole  aiiair  is 
a  sentiment,  an  opinion — that  she  has  not  one  dollar  of 
estate  at  stake — not  one  dollar  of  income  directly  depend- 
ent on  slavery ;  with  her,  slavery  has  no  necessary  bearing 
upon  the  social,  economical,  personal  or  political  condition 
of  any  State  or  individual ;  and,  finally,  as  this  nation  was 
once  composed  exclusively  of  slave  States,  every  considera- 
tion of  decency  and  good  faith  obliges  her  to  be  more, 
instead  of  less,  observant  of  the  duties  she  owes  to  those 
who  remain  in  the  condition  once  common  to  all."  On 
these  points  the  contrast  is  so  great  between  her  position 
and  that  of  the  South,  that  "  the  whole  feeling  of  loyalty 
to  the  Union  in  the  South,  is  connected  with  an  abiding 
conhdence  that  the  Xorth  will  act  as  becomes  her  in  this 
emergency."  He  plainly  intimates  that  only  by  such  con- 
cessions can  "  the  secession  pestilence  "  be  arrested,  and 
that  "  upon  these  two  points  public  opinion  in  the  slave 
States  which  have  not  seceded,  is  struggling  at  this 
moment."  Such,  then,  is  the  balance  in  which  this  ami- 
cable settlement  is  now  suspended. 


10  A   Vindication  of 

J^othing  remains  for  the  author  to  discuss,  under  his  ffih 
head,  but  the  dut}'  of  the  Government  at  Washington  in 
relation  to  secession.  Having  assumed  that  tliis  is  a  con- 
solidated nation,  secession  comes  to  be  denounced  as  sedi- 
tion, anarchy  and  rebellion,  which  must  be  crushed  by  the 
central  authority.  "By  the  express  terms,  as  well  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  a  secession  ordi- 
nance in  the  South  is  as  totally  void  as  a  personal  liberty 
law  in  the  ]!^orth  can  possibly  be."  "There  was  no  more  le- 
gal necessity,  nor  any  more  logical  consistency,  in  diatribes 
about  lack  of  power  to  coerce  a  State,  in  one  case  than  in  the 
other."  The  doctrine  that  the  people  of  a  State  are  citizens 
of  the  United  States  only  through  its  own  Constitution  and 
Government,  is  pronounced  a  political  falsehood,  and  the 
power  is  declared  complete  to  execute  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  upon  everi/  citizen  of  the  United  States,  where 
ever  found.  lie  declares  it  "sheer  folly  to  weaken  the 
posture  of  the  General  Government  towards  the  secession 
movement;"  and  is  accordingly  very  severe  upon  those  at 
the  ^orth  who  have  united  in  protests  against  coercion,  as 
all  this  but  tends  to  "avert  the  coming  reaction  which  may 
save  the  country."  His  deliberate  counsel,  therefore,  is,  in 
this  great  emergency,  that  the  General  Government  shall 
steadily  but  temperatel}^  enforce  the  laws,  postal,  revenue, 
and  every  other,  in  all  the  seceding  States,  in  utter  disre- 
gard of  all  the  ordinances  these  latter  may  have  enacted, 
avoiding  armed  collision,  except  in  repelling  force  by  force. 
By  this  policy,  to  which  he  denies  the  term  coercion,  the 
voice  that  has  not  yet  been  heard,  and  the  hand  that  has 
not  yet  been  lifted — even  the  voice  and  the  hand  of  this 
great  nation — will  be  raised  to  restore  the  old  Union  to  its 
former  integrity. 

"We  have  thus  presented  a  fair  but  condensed  summary 
of  the  pamphlet  under  review.  Without  following  the 
ramifications  of  the  argument,  or  taking  up  many  valuable 
side  thoughts,  by  which  it  is  enforced — which,  with  so  terse 


Secession  and  the  South.  11 

and  suggestive  a  writer,  -would  require  tlie  transcription  of 
tlie  entire  essay — we  have  faithfully  followed  the  main 
track  of  thought  from  beginning  to  end.  As  the  reader 
may  have  perceived,  there  is  not  a  single  new  suggestion — 
not  a  single  principle — which,  however  ably  put  by  the 
M^riter,  has  not  been  presented  fifty  times  before.  Indeed, 
his  argument  has  no  value  except  as  addressed  to  the  bor- 
der States,  dissuading  them  from  being  drawn  into  the 
vortex  of  secession,  or  as  an  irenicnm  addressed  to  the 
JSTorth,  stemming  the  tide  of  abolition  sentiment,  and 
securing  the  guarantees  necessary  to  satisfy  Southern  feel- 
ing in  Kentucky  and  elsewhere.  It  was  mainly  with  these 
objects  in  view,  we  suppose  the  argument  to  have  been 
constructed.  Had  Dr.  Breckinridge  been  content  to  restrain 
his  discussion  within  that  range,  we  should  not  have  con- 
sidered it  neccssarj^  to  offer  a  reply.  Desirable  as  it  may 
be,  for  many  reasons,  that  all  the  slave  States  should  unite 
in  forming  a  homogeneous  Confederacy,  yet  this  is  a  matter 
which  must  be  remitted  to  the  sovereign  discretion  of  each. 
We,  at  least,  have  no  desire  to  dictate  the  course  which  oth- 
ers should  pursue;  and  Dr.  Breckinridge,  as  a  loyal  son  of 
Kentucky,  might,  without  a  word  of  dissent  from  us,  assist 
in  moulding  the  local  policy  of  his  own  State.  So,  again, 
we  can  not  but  wish  that  the  fanatical  ISTorth  may  be  dispos- 
sessed of  him  whose  "  name  is  Legion,"  and  be  found  at  last 
"clothed  and  in  their  right  mind,"  prepared  to  fulfil  their 
sworn  obligations  to  the  Constitution,  to  Avhich  they  have 
so  long  been  recreant.  The  views  presented  to  this  end,  in 
the  third  section  of  the  pamphlet  before  us,  we  substantially 
endorse.  Thej^  are  precisely  such,  for  the  most  part,  as 
have  been  held  by  Christian  men  throughout  the  South  for 
many  years ;  and  are  considerably  in  advance  of  what  we 
had  supposed  Dr.  Breckinridge  could  conscientiously  de- 
fend. We  congratulate  him  on  the  satisfactory  progress 
he  has  made  since  1849,  when  he  could  advocate  prospec- 
tive emancipation  in  Kentucky,  distinctly  upon  the  grounds 


12  A   Vindication  of 

that  liereditarj  slavery  was  "contrary  to  the  natural  rights 
of  mankind,"  "opposed  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
free  government,"  "inconsistent  with  a  state  of  sound 
morality,"  and  "hostile  to  the  prosperity  of  the  Common- 
wealth," *  We  do  not  charge  this  as  an  inconsistency,  but 
note  it  as  a  sign  of  progress.  It  gives  us  hope  that,  if  Ken- 
tucky shall  see  fit  to  repudiate  his  principles  in  1861  as 
unequivocally  as  she  did  in  1849,  he  may  yet  find  his  way 
even  to  defend  secession  itself,  as  not  repugnant  to  the 
principles  of  sound  republicanism.  However  this  may  be, 
we  have  no  strictures  to  make  upon  his  present  exposition 
of  negro  slavery,  as  condemned  neither  by  the  clear  teach- 
ings of  revelation,  on  the  one  hand,  nor  by  the  confused 
utterances  of  the  law  of  nature  on  the  other.  We  sincerely 
hope  his  pregnant  suggestions  upon  this  subject  may  be 
kindly  accepted  by  his  neighbors  north  of  the  Ohio. 

But  the  limits  within  which  he  might  have  written  and 
reigned  with  undisturbed  supremacy  have  been  transcended. 

"No  pent  up  Utica  confines  Ms  powers. 
The  whole  boundless  Continent  is  his." 

No  government  will  fill  the  eye  of  his  ambition,  which 
does  not  span  the  breadth  of  a  hemisphere,  and  bathe  its 
feet  at  once  in  the  waters  of  the  Gulf  and  of  the  Lakes. 
The  silver  trumpet  is  taken  from  the  wall  to  break  the 
slumber  of  an  enchanted  nation,  which  must  rise  and  shake 
itself  for  an  imperial  career.  The  spectre  of  disunion  must 
hie  back  to  its  grave  among  the  buried  seditions  of  the  past. 
Whole  States,  stripped  of  their  sovereignty,  stand  shivering 
before  his  bufteting  and  scorn,  to  be  sent,  like  whipped 
children  of  the  nursery,  whimpering  and  supperless  to  bed. 
In  short,  Dr.  Breckinridge  has  spoiled  a  fine  part  by  over- 
acting. Had  he  been  content  to  advise  Kentucky,  without 
abusing  South  Carolina — had  he  been  satisfied  with  sooth- 

*  Biblical  Eepertory,  October,  1849,  vol.  21. 


Secession  and  the  South.  13 

ing  the  factions  ITortli,  without  crying  the  dogs  of  war 
upon  the  hunted  South — this  rejoinder  would  never  have 
been  evoked.  The  cloak  of  the  philosopher  has  been  too 
scant  to  hide  the  burly  form  of  the  partisan.  He  pours 
forth  his  defamatory  charges  upon  the  seceding  States  with 
a  wealth  of  expression  only  at  the  command  of  this  great 
master  of  the  English  tongue.  Anarchy,  disloyalty,  revolt, 
revolution,  rebellion,  fanaticism,  sedition,  form  the  alphabet 
of  an  almost  exliaustless  invective,  which,  by  endless  trans- 
position and  iteration,  make  up  a  description  so  hideous 
that  its  very  deformity  should  prove  it  a  caricature.  His 
caustic  denunciation  can  only  expend  itself  in  superlatives 
specially  constructed  by  coupling  together  the  fiercest 
phrases.  Secession  is  not  simply  secession,  but  it  is  "the 
secession  pestilence,"  or  it  is  "the  explosion  of  human  pas- 
sions," or  "a  revolution  accomplished  by  terror,  under  the 
guidance  of  irresistible  fanaticism."  It  is  not  only  anarchy, 
but  "anarchy  fierce  and  blind,"  in  "frightful  antagonism 
to  the  total  civilization  of  the  age."  It  not  only  springs 
from  hatred  of  the  Union,  but  a  hatred  that  is  "chronic" 
and  "frantic."  It  is  "a  movement  in  revolting  disregard 
towards  God's  dealings,"  and  "proclaims  shocking  concep- 
tions of  our  mission."  The  people  have  always  been  "pre- 
cipitated into  revolution,"  and  "lashed  into  madness." 
And  this,  too,  in  a  document  which,  in  its  opening  para- 
graph, purports  to  be  a  manifesto  to  posterity ;  an  appeal 
to  the  collective  and  impartial  opinion  of  mankind  is  the 
verdict  of  history,  whose  judicial  sentence  is  only  less  ter- 
rible than  that  of  the  last  day.  We  will  obey  his  summons 
before  the  dread  tribunal,  and  purge  ourselves  of  the 
calumny  which  has  been  heaped  upon  our  good  name. 

Even  this  is  not  all ;  having  proscribed  and  put  us  under 
the  ban  of  eternal  infamy,  he  would  kindle  with  his  elo- 
quence the  present  resentment  of  an  entire  nation,  that  we 
may  perish  in  its  flame.  He  translates  the  Constitution, 
that  great  charter  of  civil  freedom,  into  a  grant  of  absolute 


14  A   Vindication  of 

dominion  to  an  imperial  despot ;  and,  having  consolidated 
all  power  at  "Wasliington,  he  would  consolidate  all  opinion, 
from  the  Tennessee  to  the  St.  Lawrence,  to  become  the 
minister  of  summary  vengeance.  Stone  is  laid  npon  stone 
in  the  solid  masonry  of  his  argument;  but  as  the  huge 
pyramid  rises  before  us,  it  is  only  to  become  the  sepulchre 
where  the  last  hope  of  American  liberty  is  to  be  laid  at  rest 
for  ever.  'We  must  tell  him  the  day  has  not  yet  come  for 
these  sad  obsequies  to  be  performed.  Seven  States  love 
republican  institutions  too  Avell  to  surrender  without  a 
struggle  the  sacred  inheritance ;  and,  while  he  is  shouting 
for  an  empire,  w^e  will  contend  for  a  republic.  Assuredly, 
whatever  else  this  secession  movement  m.ixy  or  may  not 
accomplish,  it  has  sounded  the  knell  of  despotism  on  this 
continent,  and  rendered  possible  the  hope  of  transmitting 
the  principles  of  republican  government,  which  our  patriot 
fathers  toiled  and  bled  to  achieve.  These  sentences  will, 
perhaps,  sufficiently  indicate  the  general  tenor  of  this  reply, 
as  partly  apologetic — partly  expository. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  prefers  the  charge  of  anarchy  with 
equal  vehemence  against  the  Abolitionism  of  the  Korth, 
and  the  Secessionism  of  the  South,  a  couple  generally 
lashed  together  in  his  unsparing  invectives.  As  to  the 
former,  we  abandon  it  to  his  tender  mercies.  May  his  eye 
not  pity,  nor  his  hand  spare  !  Under  his  scorching  anath- 
ema, may  it  wither  to  its  deepest  root !  But  the  application 
of  this  term  to  the  South  is  against  the  testimony  of  stub- 
born and  flagrant  facts.  He  does  not  indeed  trouble  him- 
self much  to  define  the  terms  which  he  bandies  about  so 
profusely,  and  only  by  inference  can  we  gather  wdiat  he  pre- 
cisely intends  by  this  opprobrious  epithet.  On  page  four, 
he  describes  it  as  "working  unto  the  disintegration,  the 
morselment  of  all  things;"  and  on  page  five,  somewhat 
more  rhetorically,  as  "the  spirit  which  tramples  under  foot 
those  institutions  which  every  where  have  been  esteemed 
most  sacred,  and  every  where  despises  the  most  venerable 


Secession  and  the  South.  15 

and  the  most  dierished  traditions  of  our  country  and  of 
our  race."  Kothingr  .of  all  tliis  is  true  of  the  secedinj}^ 
States.  Ill  the  exercise  of  a  prerogative  which  has  always 
been  claimed,  and  for  what  thej^  deem  sufhcient  cause,  they 
have  simply  withdrawn  from  the  old  Confederacy  and 
established  a  government  of  their  own.  We  do  not  dis- 
cuss at  this  moment  the  nature  of  that  right,  or  the  suf- 
ficiency of  that  cause  ;  it  is  enough  to  say  that  their  right 
to  secede  was  no  new  pretension,  advanced  under  the 
pressure  of  an  emergenc}^,  but  was  always  claimed  as  a 
prerogative  of  sovereignty.  In  this  aspect  of  the  case,  the 
mere  fact  of  secession  does  not,  even  prima  facie,  sustain  the 
charge  of  lawlessness.  Whether  justifiable  or  not,  the  step 
was  taken,  not  against  law,  but  in  accordance  with  a  law 
which  was  deemed  by  the  parties  both  iundanieutal  and 
organic. 

If  we  consider,  further,  the  manner  in  which  secession  was 
accomplished,  not  a  sign  of  anarchy  appears ;  every  step 
was  in  conformity  with  constitutional  requirements,  both 
in  letter  and  in  spirit.  The  people  in  each  State  were 
assembled  in  solemn  Convention,  called  in  due  form,  and 
with  due  deliberation.  The  election  of  delegates  was 
free  and  untrammelled,  without  the  machinery  of  caucuses, 
or  the  intervention  of  wire-working  politicians.  Ordi- 
nances of  secession  were  duly  framed,  debated,  -  adopted 
and  signed,  with  almost  a  religious  solemnity.  Chosen 
delegates  convened,  after  the  manner  of  our  fathers,  with 
authenticated  commissions,  in  a  united  Congress.  A  pro- 
visional government  is  immediately  formed,  adopting, 
almost  without  change,  the  old  Constitution  of  the  Union. 
With  reasonable  dispatch  a  permanent  Constitution  is 
framed,  still  upon  the  model  of  the  old,  with  only  such 
modifications  as  were  necessary  to  adjudicate  the  principles 
lying  at  the  bottom  of  this  controversy,  and  to  purge,  as 
far  as  practicable,  the  intolerable  abuses  and  corruptions 
which,  under  the  old  regime,  had  crept  in  through  a  per- 


16  A   Vindication  of 

verted  and  subtle  iuterpretation  of  tliat  venerable  instru- 
ment. This  new  Constitution  is  r(i|^nded  to  the  respect- 
ive States ;  and  at  this  moment  is  IKig  submitted  to  the 
ratification  of  the  sovereign  people  in  those  States,  in  such 
manner  as  they  themselves  shall  determine.  Where  in  all 
this  is  "the  morcelment  of  all  things,"  that  has  been  spoken 
of?  If  there  be  disintegration,  it  is  not  through  the  sep- 
aration of  tl«  atoms  in  the  mass,  but  by  simple  cleavage 
between  adjacent  lamintis.  The  law  of  cohesion  still 
obtains  between  the  people  which  make  up  an  entire 
sovereignty,  and  these  entire  sovereignties  separate  for  the 
express  purpose  of  reintegrating  in  a  new  and  happier 
union.  Dr.  Breckinridge  is  mistaken  in  supposing  this 
political  change  to  be  "  the  disintegration  of  every  health- 
ful force  of  societ3^"  It  is  rather  the  recuperative  power 
of  indwelling  life,  throwing  ofi:*  disease,  and  resuming 
health — it  is  but  the  moulting  of  the  eagle,  putting  on  a 
brighter  plumage,  and  springing  upward  from  its  eyrie  to 
a  bolder  flight. 

Since  secession  has  taken  place,  wdiat  sign  of  anarchy 
has  appeared  in  those  States  which  have  adventured  its 
perils  ?  With  completely  organized  State  governments, 
each  has  moved  steadily  forward,  and  life,  honor  and  prop- 
erty have  been  as  safe  as  under  the  broad  shield  of  the 
Union.  All  lines  of  business  have  been  pursued  as  before, 
scarcely  ajar  being  felt  in  the  transition.  J^otwithstand- 
ing  the  letters  with  which  the  country  has  been  flooded, 
from  mythical  correspondents,  describing  the  depreciation 
of  property,  the  ruinous  extent  of  taxation,  and  a  general 
reign  of  terror,  we  venture  to  affirm  there  has  been  more 
repose  in  the  seven  Cotton  States  than  in  all  the  rest  of 
the  country  beside.  With  the  exception  of  more  than 
usual  mi'itary  stir,  in  evidence  of  preparation  to  bide  the 
worst  that  might  come,  and  with  the  exception  of  a  certain 
amount  of  financial  embarrassment,  arising  from  the  politi- 
cal confusion  of  the  country,  there  has  been  nothing  to 


Secession  and  the  South.  17 

distinguish  this  period  from  the  calmest  moments  of  the 
past. 

During  the  long-  anterior  conflict  which  has  terminated 
in  secession,  what  m^ftifestation  has  the  South  made  of  the 
spirit  which  "tramples  upon  sacred  institutions,  and 
despises  cherished  traditions?"  Through  forty  years  she 
has  been  loyal  to  the  Constitution,  earnestly  contending 
for  rights  which  were  in  that  bond,  and  battling  against 
usurpations  which  were  not  there.  JSTevei*  in  a  single 
instance,  trespassing  upon  the  rights  of  others,  she  has  only 
succeeded  in  maintaining  her  own,  through  a  vigilance 
which  has  never  been  permitted  to  slumber.  Her  content- 
ment with  the  Constitution,  and  complacency  in  its  pro- 
visions, are  illustrated  in  her  cordial  readoption  of  it,  and 
the  reverence  with  which,  under  the  new  Government,  she 
has  placed  it  again  within  tlie  ark  of  testimony.  'Nay,  the 
ver}^  changes  which  have  been  introduced  into  that  sacred 
document  move  in  a  direction  precisely  the  reverse  of 
anarchy.  The  extension  of  the  Presidential  term — the 
ineligibility  to  a  second  term — the  removal  from  office  of 
subordinates  only  for  certain  specified  causes — the  refer- 
ence of  these  to  the  Senate — the  liberty  given  to  members 
of  the  Cabinet  to  discuss  their  measures  upon  the  floor  of 
either  house,  for  ever  dispensing  with  party  organs — the 
practical  provision  for  convening  the  States  Avhen  necessary, 
without  resorting  to  revolution  to  obtain  redress — we  dis- 
cuss none  of  these  points,  but  simply  state  they  betray 
any  thing  else  but  a  tendency  to  anarchy,  if  there  be  any 
definite  meaning  attached  to  that  word.  So  that,  whether 
we  look  at  the  secession  movement  in  the  act,  or  in  t]ie 
manner,  whether  in  the  histonj  subsequent,  or  in  the  history 
antecedent  to  it,  the  charge  of  lawlessness  can  not  be  sus- 
tained, until  a  new  dictionary  of  the  English  language 
shall  be  framed.  The  sole  foundation  of  this  charge  lies 
in  his  conception  of  the  American  people  as  fused  into  one 
solid,  granulated  mass,  which  now  appears  to  be  crumbling 
3 


18  A   Vindication  of 

into  atoms.  We  may  not  anticipate  liere  the  discussion  of 
that  point.  His  idolatry  of  the  empire — that  great  image 
of  iN^ebuchadnezzar,  set  up  on  thejPlfen  of  Dura — is  dis- 
turbed ;  shadows  are  passing  over  the.  otdi  glory  of  the  past ; 
and  he  can  see  no  wisdom  in  arrangements  tliat  are  not 
stereotyped  in  the  world  of  that  past.  Anarchy,  with  him, 
is  simply  change,  a  departure  from  the  existing  order. 
But  all  change  is  not  anarchy ;  nor  is  every  uprising  of  an 
indignant  people  in  defence  of  chartered  rights  to  be  de- 
nounced as  insurrection.  This  can  be  maintained  only 
upon  principles  which  would  have  made  him,  in  1776,  a 
tyrant  in  England  and  a  Tory  in  America. 

Dr.  Breckinridge  is  in  grievous  error  upon  other  points 
besides  this  of  anarchy.  We  allude  to  his  account  of  the 
origin  and  spread  of  secession,  the  objects  at  which  it  aims, 
and  the  motives  by  which  it  has  been  prompted.  His  state- 
ment, gleaned  from  different  parts  of  the  pamphlet,  is,  that 
it  took  its  rise  in  the  "chronic  hatred  of  South  Carolina  to 
the  National  Union" — (p.  9) — that  it  "was  propagated  from 
her  by  concerted  action  through  an  organized  party,  which 
succeeded  in  precipitating  State  after  State  into  secession ; 
while  the  masses  of  the  people,  stunned  by  the  suddenness 
and  vehemence  and  thorough  organization  of  the  move- 
ment, were  borne  along  by  it" — (p.  23).  His  conviction  of 
this  is  so  firm  that  he  warns  the  country  not  to  accept  "this 
exaggerated  and  disloyal  opinion  of  the  extreme  South,  as 
irrevocably  fixed" — (p.  40) — and  builds  the  hope  of  future 
reconstruction  upon  the  reaction  which  is  certain  to  ensue — 
(p.  11).  He  further  charges  upon  secession  that  it  has 
ulterior  designs  to  accomplish,  beyond  those  which  are 
avowed — (pp.  7,  9).  He  more  than  intimates  that  the  de- 
sign of  the  South  to  make  slavery  universal  is  as  strong  as 
that  of  the  North  to  banish  it  entirely;  this  being  "the 
shocking  conception "  they  have  formed  as  to  the  mission 
of  the  American  people — (pp.  12,  34,  36).  He  further 
charges  that  the  lust  of  power  is  the  controlling  motive  of 


Secession  and  the  South,  19 

tlie  seceding  States;  "power  to  be  diminished  by  remaining 
m  tbe  Union,  and  to...be  incalculably  increased  by  leaving 
it;  and  that  this  idea^  far  more  than  disgust  that  the  E^orth 
has  condemned  slavery,  or  any  apprehension  that  slavery 
will  be  disturbed,  has  precipitated  them  into  revolution" — 
(p.  14).  Finally,  he  denounces  the  seizure  of  the  forts, 
public  arms,  the  mint,  and  other  national  property,  as 
j)lunder  and  robbery — (pp.  37,  39).  This  is  a  heavy  indict- 
ment, and  the  specifications  are  minute.  We  propose  to 
substitute  authentic  facts  for  these  fictions,  which  are  the 
coinage  of  a  fertile  brain,  or  else  have  been  received  with 
a  credulity  unworthy  of  a  philosopher. 

We  deny  that  South  Carolina  has  ever  been  actuated  by 
so  base  a  sentiment  as  "hatred  of  the  Union;"  especially, 
a  hatred  that  is  "chronic."  Her  statesmen  and  her  people 
did,  indeed,  despair  of  the  Republic  sooner  than  others. 
With  that  penetration  into  the  working  of  secret  and  poten- 
tial causes  which  seems  intuitive,  Mr.  Calhoun  long  since 
announced  the  catastrophe  that  has  occurred,  Avith  a  pre- 
cision which  now  looks  like  the  inspiration  of  prophecy. 
But  that  she  has  ever  been  disloyal  to  the  Constitution,  is 
historically  untrue.  During  the  Revolutionary  struggle, 
overlaid  by  the  British  forces,  she  passed  through  unparal- 
leled sufierings ;  and  contributed  her  full  proportion  of 
blood  and  treasure  to  the  common  cause,  as  the  numerous 
battle-fields  which  dot  her  soil  abundantly  show.  From 
that  day  to  this,  in  all  her  country's  battles  her  sons  have 
stood  nearest  to  the  flashing  of  the  guns,  always  prodigal 
of  life,  whether  amid  the  hammocks  of  Florida,  or  upon 
the  plains  of  Mexico.  In  the  more  quiet  walks  of  civil  life, 
she  has  taken  her  share  in  the  public  councils,  and  borne 
her  fair  proportion  of  the  public  burdens,  however  oppres- 
sively distributed.  Even  in  the  memorable  conflict  of  Nul- 
lification, for  which  she  has  endured  long  reproach,  she 
was  battling  for  the  Constitution,  and  for  the  equal  rights 
of  which  it  was  the  bond.     Upon  that  Constitution  she 


20  A  Vindication  of 

stood  til  en — upon  that  Constitution  she  stands  still — and 
in  her  departure  from  a  faithless  Un^on  she  bears  it  into  a 
new  sanctuary,  the  Palladium  of  liberty.  But,  when  all 
hope  of  safety  had  died  within  her,  she  stood  calmly  under 
the  shadow  of  the  Capitol,  before  the  clock  which  silently 
told  the  Nation's  hours,  and  Avhich  would  ere  long  sound 
the  knell  of  its  destiny.  No  sooner  was  this  heard  in  the 
shout  of  Black  Republican  success,  than  she  leaped,  feeble 
and  alone,  into  the  deadly  breach.  History  has  nowhere 
upon  her  records  a  more  sublime  example  of  moral  heroism. 
Ignorant  whether  she  would  be  supported,  even  by  her 
sister  across  the  Savannah,  relying  on  nothing  save  the 
righteousness  of  her  cause  and  the  power  of  God,  she  took 
upon  her  shield  and  spear  as  desperate  and  as  sacred  a  con- 
flict as  ever  made  a  State  immortal.  It  is  just  this  heroic 
devotion  to  principle,  this  faith  in  the  right  and  the  true, 
this  singleness  of  heart  in  the  presence  of  duty,  and  this 
abiding  trust  in  the  power  and  righteousness  of  God, 
that  render  her  capable  of  a  thousand  martyrdoms,  and 
incapable  of  political  bondage.  It  is  just  this  combination 
of  attributes,  crowning  her  with  such  moral  dignity,  that 
draws  to  her  worn  hill-sides  and  barren  pines  the  "untrav- 
elled  hearts"  of  her  sons;  who,  in  all  their  wanderings, 
from  the  tropics  to  the  pole,  breathe  no  more  fervent  prayer 
than  in  death  to  sleep  upon  her  faithful  bosom  until  the 
awful  day.  Her  accusers  prejudge  their  own  cause,  when 
it  is  alleged  that  such  a  State  can  hate  the  Union.  K  it 
were  true,  it  is  only  because  that  Union  had  become  the 
synouyme  of  tyranny.  But  the  breath  of  slander  will  pass 
over  her  fame  as  upon  a  burnishe"d  mirror — a  moment 
dim — then  brighter  than  before.  The  Genius  of  history  has 
already  wreathed  the  garland  with  which  her  brow  shall  be 
decked.  Long  may  she  live,  the  mother  of  heroes  who 
shall  be  worthy  of  their  birth  ! 

The  allegation,  too,  that  the  policy  of  secession  has  been 
"dictated"  by  South  Carolina  to  the  other  six  States,  is 


Secession  and  the  South.  21 

simply  preposterous.  If  it  were  a  matter  of  policy  at  all, 
slie  has  enjoyed  no  such  prestige  as  a  political  leader  as  to 
make  it  safe  for  her  to  venture  upon  its  "dictation;"  and 
the  prejudice  entertained  against  her,  as  "the  irrepressible 
little  State,"  would,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  have 
been  a  weight  upon  the  movement.  The  fact  is,  it  has  not 
been  a  question  of  calculation  and  simple  prudence  in  any 
one  of  the  States — but  of  stern  and  absolute  necessity — a 
couiiict  for  life,  "to  be,  or  not  to  be."  It  is  unstatesmanlike 
in  the  last  degree  to  refer  an  agitation  so  deep  and  wide- 
spread to  the  superficial  causes  hinted  in  this  pamphlet.  It 
is  no  transient  storm  upon  the  sea  from  the  blowing  of  an 
east  wind,  but  it  is  the  deep  ground-swell  of  tHe  ocean, 
heaving  its  waters  upon  the  main.  If  ever  there  was  a 
movement  "spontaneous  and  cordial  among  the  popular 
masses,"  this  was  one,  "VVe  are  not  in  the  counsels  of  the 
Democratic  party,  to  know  whether  its  disruption  at  Charles- 
ton was  (as  Dr.  Breckinridge  takes  on  him  to  assert)  "an 
act  of  deep  intention,  designed  to  produce  exactly  what  has 
followed" — (p.  23) — but  we  do  know  tliat,  if  it  were,  then 
have  their  most  sanguine  expectations  been  surpassed.  We 
do  know  that,  after  this  disruption,  the  popular  masses 
embarked  with  all  their  usual  interest  in  the  Presidential 
canvass,  each  voter  hoping  to  save  the  Union  by  the  elec- 
tion of  a  conservative  ticket — that  upon  the  sixth  of  No- 
vember  these  masses  went  to  bed  as  firmly  attached  to  the 
XTnion  as  they  had  ever  been,  and  awoke  on  the  seventh, 
after  Mr.  Lincoln's  election,  just  as  determined  upon  resist- 
ance to  his  rule.  The  revolution  in  public  opinion  was  far 
too  sudden,  too  universal,  and  too  radical,  to  be  occasioned 
by  the  craft  and  jugglery  of  politicians.  It  was  not  their 
wire-dancing  upon  party  platforms  which  thus  instan- 
taneously broke  up  the  deep  foundations  of  the  popular 
will,  and  produced  this  spontaneous  uprising  of  the  people 
in  the  majesty  of  their  supremacy;    casting  party  hacks 


22  A   Vindication  of 

aside,  who  shall  have  no  control  over  a  movement  not  hav- 
ing its  genesis  in  their  machinations. 

The  division  of  opinion  at  the  South  between  cooperation 
and  secession  is  greatly  over-estimated,  when  vaticinations 
are  based  upon  it  of  a  speedy  and  certain  reaction.  It  was 
simply  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  subordinate  and  col- 
lateral points ;  nothing  more.  It  has  never  shaped  itself 
into  parties,  and  even  as  an  opinion,  the  distinction  is  now 
almost  entirely  cancelled.  The  Cooperationists  from  the 
beginning  averred — and  their  subsequent  acts  sustain  the 
declaration — that  secession  was  with  them,  as  with  others> 
the  ultimate  remedy.  But  they  preferred  to  reach  this 
great  conclusion  by  successive  steps.  They  preferred  to 
justify  the  South  at  the  bar  of  history,  by  offering  to  the 
North  an  ultimatum,  which  yet  they  did  not  expect  to  be 
accepted.  They  desired  all  the  slave  States,  as  they  were 
involved  in  a  common  peril,  after  mutual  conference,  to 
move  together  in  unbroken  phalanx ;  both  as  a  precaution 
against  the  contingency  of  civil  war,  and  as  a  method  of 
securing  consideration  to  the  new  Confederacy.  We  shall 
certainly  not  discuss  the  wisdom  of  these  suggestions. 
That  is  now  a  perfectly  dead  issue,  and  the  disclosures 
which  have  since  been  made,  alike  in  the  deliberations  of 
the  Peace  Conference,  and  in  the  Federal  Congress  at 
"Washington,  have  probably  more  than  satisfied  them  in 
acquiescing  in  the  course  which  was  actually  pursued.  If 
proof  was  needed  that  this  difference  of  opinion  related 
only  to  immaterial  issues,  it  is  the  heartiness  of  this  acqui- 
escence. Certain  it  is,  that  no  sooner  were  the  Ordinances 
of  Secession  actually  passed  than  Cooperationists  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  extreme  Secessionists,  and  have 
proved  the  most  unflinching  advocates  of  the  new  Govern- 
ment. The  evidence  is  absolutely  overwhelming,  that, 
since  its  inauguration,  the  secession  movement  has  been 
.  drawing  deeper  every  day,  and  j)ublic  opinion  has  drifted 
rapidly  against  the  possibility,  or  even  desirableness,  of  a 


Secession  and  the  South.  23 

reconstruction.  If  there  be  a  predestinated  reaction — 
which  Dr.  Breckinridge  seems  to  decree — he  must  sit 
longer  on  the  mount  of  observation  than  did  the  prophet 
of  old,  before  he  shall  see  the  sign  of  its  coming. 

The  charge  of  "ulterior  and  concealed  designs"  is 
handled  with  a  delicacy  that  altogether  surprises  us.  Dr. 
Breckinridge  is  rarely  satisfied  to  puncture  with  an  inuendo. 
lie  always  employs  the  genuine  weapons  of  war,  and  would 
not  be  suspected  of  a  resort  to  the  stiletto.  Why,  then, 
does  he  take  up  this  allegation  so  gingerly  upon  his  fingers, 
as  though  it  had  thorns  to  prick  him?  In  his  Fast-Day 
Discourse — which,  though  the  briefer,  is  far  the  abler  doc- 
ument of  the  two — he  significantly  asks  the  people  of 
Kentucky,  "Do  you  want  the  slave  trade  reopened  ?  Do 
you  want  some  millions  more  of  African  cannibals  thrown 
amongst  you,  broadcast  throughout  the  whole  slave  States?" 
This,  then,  on  the  fourth  of  January,  was  one  of  the  "  ulte- 
rior designs"  of  secession.  Was  it  the  recollection  of  this 
splendid  prophecy,  unexpectedly  spoiled  by  the  Congress 
of  "the  Cotton  Confederacy,"  in  the  interdict  of  this  traffic 
by  an  organic  law,  that  renders  him  now  suddenly  prudent 
— contenting  himself  with  generalities  that  can  not  pres- 
ently be  falsified  ?  In  that  same  discourse,  he  continues  his 
interrogatories  to  the  people  of  Kentucky :  "  Do  you  want 
to  begin  a  war  which  shall  end  when  you  shall  have  taken 
possession  of  the  whole  Southern  part  of  this  Continent, 
down  to  the  Isthmus  of  Darien?"  Perhaps  this  is  the  bug- 
bear now  haunting  his  prophetic  dreams.  Well,  there 
may  be  some  thing  here,  for  we  see  the  wise  men  at  Wash- 
ington proposing  to  the  powers  of  Europe  a  gracious  pro- 
tectorate over  Mexico  against  the  ambitious  schemes  of  the 
Infant  Republic ;  and  benevolently  hinting  to  Spain  our 
very  dangerous  proximity  to  Cuba,  a  sugar-plum  that 
Louisiana  especially  would  like  to  swallow,  in  better 
security  of  her  own  great  staple.  Who  knows  but  there 
may  be  in  the  midst  of  us  military  adventurers,  as  there 


24  A   Vindication  of 

are  iu  all  lands,  who  are  ambitious  of  making  history  a 
little  prematurely  ?  We  know  not  how  to  quiet  these  ner- 
vous forebodings,  but  by  suggesting  that  the  South  has 
notoriously  been  content  to  walk  in  historic  paths.  In  all 
the  long  battle  about  slavery,  we  have  planted  ourselves 
upon  history,  as  well  as  upon  revelation.  We  have  im- 
plored the  ISTorth  to  look  upon  the  whole  subject  as  a  ques- 
tion of  history,  and  to  leave  it  to  history  for  solution.  We 
have  not  the  prescience  of  the  prophet  to  forecast  the  dis- 
tant future.  We  are  content  to  deal  with  present  realities, 
and  leave  the  future  to  posterity,  when  it  shall  become 
their  present.  This  has  always  been  our  position — nothing 
more,  nothing  less.  Of  all  nations  upon  earth,  we  are  the 
last  to  go  poaching  upon  the  inheritance  of  our  neighbors. 
With  the  motto  "noZi  7ne  tangere"  inscribed  upon  the  ban- 
ner of  our  defence,  every  instinct  of  self-preservation,  as 
well  as  every  sentiment  of  public  decency,  restrains  us 
from  military  oppression ;  and  the  world  may  rest  satisfied 
that  in  our  waters,  at  least,  the  buccaneer  can  not  find  his 
sheltering  cove.  If  we  desire  territory,  we  will  not,  with 
school-boy  greed,  pluck  the  apple  when  it  is  green,  but  will 
wait  upon  history  till  the  time  of  ripeness,  when  it  shall 
fall  into  the  lap.  But  insinuations  admit  no  reply.  Our 
author  is  lawyer  enough  to  know  that  no  indictment 
crouched  in  generalities  can  lie  in  any  court. 

The  transition  is  easy  to  his  pathetic  lamentation  over 
the  pious  degeneracy  which  makes  the  universal  extension 
of  slavery  the  mission  of  the  American  people — (pp.  12,  34, 
36).  Was  a  purer  fiction  ever  coined  before?  Where, 
in  all  the  productions  of  Southern  writers,  political  or 
religious,  will  Dr.  Breckinridge  find  this  thesis  defended?. 
Has  it  not  alwaj^s  been  admitted,  by  writers  on  both  sides 
of  the  line,  that,  if  African  slavery  exists  at  all,  its  limits 
must  be  determined  by  climate  and  soil — that  precisely 
where  it  ceases  to  be  profitable,  there  it  will  inevitably 
cease  to  exist  ?     It  is  alone  for  this  we  have  been  contend- 


Secession  and  the  South.  25 

ing — that,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  "Webster,  slavery  may  be 
left  to  be  determined  by  nature  and  God.  The  simple 
statement  out  of  which  this  great  story  of  the  three  bhiek 
crows  has  grown,  is  this,  that  slavery  having  come,  in 
God's  providence,  to  be  the  inheritance  of  the  South, 
thoroughly  interwoven  with  every  iibre  of  society,  and 
giving  the  very  complexion  and  form  of  our  civilization — 
and  the  historic  moment  having  arrived,  at  the  close  of 
more  than  a  Peloponnesian  war,  for  concluding  the  con- 
flict for  ever — it  is  therefore  the  duty  of  the  South,  in  the 
discharge  of  a  great  historic  trust,  to  conserve  and  transmit 
the  same.  She  must  bravely  rebuke  the  presumption 
which  undertakes  by  legislative  enactment  to  restrict  that 
which  can  only  be  determined  by  God  Himself,  in  the  out- 
working of  His  providential  purposes ;  and  she  must  set 
over  against  it  a  claim  of  rio-ht  to  q:o  wherever  the  provi- 
dence  of  God  shall  choose  to  have  it  go.  We  have  never 
said  that  it  was  the  mission  of  the  whole  American  people 
to  extend  it  any  where.  We  have  never  said  that  it  was 
the  mission  of  the  South  to  do  nothing  but  labor  for  that 
extension ;  but  simply  that,  in  the  great  impending  crisis, 
the  South  would  be  recreant  to  every  obligation  of  duty, 
and  to  every  principle  of  honor,  and  to  every  instinct  of 
interest,  if  she  did  not  effectively  contradict  and  rebuke 
the  insufferable  arrogance  of  those  who  assume  into  their 
hands  the  prerogatives  of  Divine  legislation.  If  this  offends 
the  pious  sensibilities  of  our  brethren  all  over  the  land, 
we  take  occasion  to  say  it  will  require  some  thing  more  to 
overthrow  it  than  a  holy  exclamation. 

With  real  pain  we  read  the  next  specification  against  the 
South,  of  being  actuated  by  the  lust  of  power.  In  a  penny 
paper,  this  would  not  have  surprised  us;  but  we  expect 
generosity  from  the  brave.  It  betrays  a  want  of  states- 
manship to  overlook  the  real  causes  of  a  great  popular 
movement,  and  to  base  a  political  remedy  upon  motives 
which  are  purely  fanciful.  Why  will  not  Kentucky  and 
4 


26  A   Vindication  of 

the  world  believe  the  constant  averment  of  the  seceding 
South,  that  she  has  acted  under  the  conviction  of  an 
amazing  peril,  and  from  a  sense  of  compelling  justice? 
Through  nearly  a  half  a  century  a  party  has  been  strug- 
gling for  political  rule,  in  sworn  hostility  to  that  institution 
upon  which  the  life  and  being  of  the  South  depend.  It 
has  grown  through  all  opposition,  until  it  has  imbued  the 
public  mind  of  the  ISTorth  with  a  kindred,  though  somewhat 
restrained,  abhorrence  of  slavery.  It  has  laid  hold  upon  all 
parties  as  instruments  of  its  will ;  and  now  at  length,  subor- 
dinating the  Republicans  as  its  pliant  tool,  it  has  throned 
itself  upon  the  chair  of  State,  and  speaks  with  the  authority 
of  law.  "We  need  not  go  through  all  the  details  of  a  long 
and  too  familiar  story,  and  recite  the  utterances  and  dis- 
close the  platforms  of  the  dominant  party  now  represented 
in  the  occupancy  of  the  White  House.  "What  was  the 
South  to  do  ?  Submission  at  this  stage  would  have  been 
submission  for  ever ;  and  since  this  was  impossible  without 
the  surrender  of  all  that  a  people  can  hold  dear — liberty, 
honor,  and  safety — she  simply,  and,  as  we  think,  with 
great  dignity,  withdrew  from  the  disgraceful  and  destruc- 
tive association.  Yet,  while  struggling  thus  for  life  itself, 
she  is  stigmatized  by  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Breckinridge,  with 
a  base  lust  of  power,  or  peevishly  resenting  the  loss  of  a 
political  control  which  she  can  not  hope  to  recover. 

It  is  certainly  strange  that  a  motive  sufficiently  strong 
to  unite  seven  States  in  the  solemn  act  of  secession  from 
the  Union  should  never  have  combined  them  whilst  in  that 
Union ;  for  it  is  notorious,  upon  all  questions  of  public 
policy,  the  South  has  ever  been  found  divided  into  parties, 
and  arrayed  often  against  herself.  How  does  this  fact — 
true  up  to  the  very  date  of  secession — comport  with  this 
grasping  ambition,  which  suddenly  relinquishes  all  the  tra- 
ditions and  advantages  of  the  Federal  Union,  that  she  may 
vent  her  spleen  for  the  loss  of  dominion  ?  Plow  does  this 
allegation  further  consist  with  the  exemplary  patience  with 


Secession  and  the  South.  27 

■vrbich  she  has  endured  a  system  of  revenue  legislation, 
flagrantly  and  systematically  discriminating  against  her, 
and  in  favor  of  the  North?  But  the  abundant  fertility 
of  her  soil  has  enabled  her  to  grow  rich,  even  whilst  con- 
tributing two-thirds  to  the  revenue  of  the  Government. 
'Not  for  causes  like  these  did  she  care  to  rupture  the  bonds 
of  association  which  linked  the  whole  country  together. 
There  is  just  so  much  truth  as  this  in  the  charge  now 
tabled  against  her.  The  South  has  looked  with  increasing 
alarm  at  the  great  increase  of  power  at  the  Xorth,  by  the 
addition  of  new  free  States ;  well  knowing  this  power  was 
destined  to  be  wielded  to  her  destruction.  This  she  had 
reason  to  dread,  and  if,  amongst  the  possible  contingencies 
of  the  future,  the  question  of  reconstruction  should  be 
opened  to  debate,  the  South,  unless  she  be  given  over  to 
judicial  blindness,  will  enter  into  no  union  in  which  the 
balance  of  power  is  not  in  some  way  preserved  between 
the  two  sections.  She  will  scarcely  again  hazard  her  all 
by  trusting  to  a  paper  Constitution,  without  an  effective 
provision,  whether  by  a  dual  Executive,  or  by  a  perpetual 
equilibrium  in  the  Senate,  or  by  some  other  expedient, 
against  the  lawless  will  of  an  unscrupulous  majority.  She 
has  preferred  the  better  way  of  secession,  and  of  a  separate 
Government.  Having  long  borne  the  burden  of  unequal 
taxation,  it  was  proposed  she  should  sustain  that  of  politi- 
cal subjection  also.  The  time  had  not  come  for  her  to 
accept  the  lot  of  Issachar,  that  "  of  a  strong  ass  crouching 
between  two  burdens." 

The  truth  of  history  must  be  vindicated,  touching  the 
seizure  of  forts  and  other  national  property,  alleged  against 
us  as  acts  of  spoliation  and  robbery.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered that  nothing  of  this  sort  was  initiated  until  Major 
Anderson,  under  cover  of  night,  spiked  the  cannon  of  Fort 
Moultrie,  and  threw  himself  into  the  impregnable  fortress 
opposite  to  it  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston.  We  have 
nothing   to   say   of  this   as   a  piece   of  military   strategy, 


28  A   Vindication  of 

except  that  it  changed  at  once  the  status  of  the  two  par- 
ties in  this  controversy.  We  have  no  anathemas  to  hurl 
against  this  gallant  officer ;  for,  his  act  being  endorsed  by 
the  Cabinet,  all  censure  is  transferred  from  the  subaltern 
to  the  principal.  But  the  signiiicauce  of  this  movement 
could  not  be  mistaken.  It  meant  coercion.  The  intol- 
erable outrage  was  meditated  of  turning  the  batteries,  which 
had  been  erected  for  the  defence  of  the  harbor  against  a 
foreign  foe,  upon  the  very  people  on  whose  soil  they  had 
been  built.  Instantly,  upon  the  electric  Avires  the  convic- 
tion flashed  throughout  the  South,  that  they  were  dealing 
with  an  imbecile  and  treacherous  Government,  which  could 
not  be  trusted  on  its  own  parole.  As  a  matter  of  simple 
self-defence,  forts  were  seized,  with  all  the  public  arms  to 
be  found  within  their  domain.  But  at  this  very  time  of 
seizure,  it  was  proclaimed  by  State  authority  that  the  pro- 
prietorship of  the  United  States  was  distinctly  recognized, 
that  the  seizure  was  intended  only  to  prevent  an  unlawful 
and  monstrous  perversion  of  these  munitions  of  war  to 
their  destruction,  and  that  in  final  negotiations  with  the 
other  party,  the  whole  should  be  accounted  for  as  the 
property  of  the  entire  country. 

Precisely  so  with  the  mint  at  New  Orleans.  Money  is 
the  sinew  of  war ;  and  Louisiana  resolved  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment should  not  draw  from  these  coffers  the  means  of 
her  own  subjugation.  What  then?  She  first  takes  a  faith- 
ful inventory  of  all  the  mint  contained,  places  the  same 
on  file,  and  publishes  it  to  all  the  world.  She  then  passes 
a  special  ordinance,  through  her  Convention,  by  which  the 
seal  of  the  State  is  impressed  upon  this  as  a  sacred  deposit, 
held  in  trust,  to  be  accounted  for  even  to  the  uttermost 
farthing,  in  the  final  reckoning.  We  have  private  knowl- 
edge of  the  fact,  that  of  this  money,  she  has  already  paid 
out  large  sums  upon  drafts  of  the  Government  at  Wash- 
ington, to  meet  their  public  contracts.  Under  this  expo- 
sition, what  becomes  of  the  charge  of  gross  immorality 


Secession  and  the  South.  29 

preferred  against  tlie  seceding  States  ?  "We  smile  in  sad- 
ness over  the  recklessness  of  party  zeal  wliicli  draws  a 
good  and  great  man  under  the  censure — "Ao?u'  soit  qui  mat  y 
pense." 

But  enough  of  apology.  Having  disposed  of  these 
allegations,  the  severer  part  of  our  task  remains,  in  the 
discussion  of  the  theory  which  Dr.  Breckinridge  advances 
concerning  the  nature  of  our  Government.  The  funda- 
mental fallacy  pervading  his  entire  argument  is  the  mis- 
conception that  it  is  a  consolidated  popular  Government, 
instead  of  being  a  Congress  of  Republics.  It  is  this  which 
gives  point  to  his  charge  of  anarchy — it  is  this  that  enables 
him  to  define  secession  as  sedition  and  rebellion — it  is  this 
view  of  the  case  that  drives  him,  in  logical  consistency,  and 
against  the  better  impulses  of  his  heart,  to  advise  a  coercive 
policy,  tempered  with  as  much  forbearance  as  may  consist 
with  a  due  enforcement  of  the  supreme  law.  Here,  then, 
is  the  TTpwzov  (j'BO'ltx;  of  the  pamphiet:  and  our  defence  of 
the  South  is  incomplete,  if  we  spare  the  refutation  it  de- 
mands. "VVe  are  well  aware  that  the  controversy  is  as  old 
as  the  Constitution  itself,  and  has  at  various  periods  enlist- 
ed the  ablest  minds  of  the  country,  who  have  canvassed 
the  subject  both  in  popular  speeches  and  in  the  calmer 
productions  of  the  closet.  But  the  pressure  of  this  grave 
crisis,  and  the  nature  of  the  assaults  made  upon  us,  compel 
the  reopening  ot  a  discussion  which  might  well  be  thought 
closed  up  and  sealed  for  ever.  In  proof  that  we  do  not 
misrepresent  our  author's  position,  consider  the  emphasis 
with  which  he  speaks  of  this  "great  nation,"  and  dwells 
upon  the  unity  of  its  life — (pp.  11,  12).  "We  constitute," 
says  he,  "  one  nation,  whose  people,  however,  are  divided 
into  many  sovereign  States" — (p.  31).  "It  is  a  political 
falsehood  that  the  people  of  a  State  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  only  through  the  Constitution  and  Govern- 
ment of  that  State  " — (p.  38).  This  is  brought  out  still 
more  articulately  in  his  Fast-Day  Discourse,  which  in  a 


30  A  Vindication  of 

note  is  assumed  as  a  part  of  the  argument  of  the  essay  in 
the  Review.  '•'■'Eo  State,"  writes  he,  "in  this  Union  ever 
had  any  sovereignty  at  all,  independent  of,  and  except  as 
they  were  United  States.  When  they  speak  of  recovering 
their  sovereignty — when  they  speak  of  returning  to  their 
condition  as  sovereigns,  in  which  they  were  before  they 
were  members  of  the  Confederacy,  called  at  first  the 
United  Colonies,  and  then  the  United  States — they  speak 
of  a  thing  that  has  no  existence;  they  speak  of  a  thing  that 
is  historically  without  foundation."  Again:  " as  United 
Colonies  they  were  born  States."  "  So  born  that  each 
State  is  equally  and  for  ever,  by  force  of  its  very  existence, 
and  the  manner  thereof,  both  a  part  of  this  American 
nation,  and  also  a  sovereign  State  of  itself."  "  The  people, 
therefore,  can  no  more  legally  throw  off' their  national  alle- 
giance, than  they  can  legally  throw  off" their  State  allegiance; 
either  attempt,  considered  in  any  legal,  in  any  constitu- 
tional, in  any  historical  light,  is  pure  madness."— (Discourse, 
p.  8.)  From  these  quotations  it  is  evident  Dr.  Breckiu-. 
ridge  does  not  use  the  term  nation  in  a  loose  popular  sense, 
to  signify  a  body  of  people,  inhabiting  the  same  country, 
speaking  the  same  language,  deduced  from  the  same  origin, 
and  recognizing  substantially  the  same  laws ;  but  in  the 
fixed  political  sense  of  a  people  fused  into  one  common 
and  solid  mass,  who  are  merely  distributed  into  States, 
for  the  convenience  of  local  government.  His  conception, 
therefore,  of  the  nation,  is  primary ;  that  of  States,  second- 
ary and  derived.  The  relation  of  the  people  to  the  central 
authority  is  immediate,  and  not  as  they  are  the  people  of 
the  separate  States.  While,  in  a  sense  which  it  would  be 
diificult  to  define,  sovereignty  is  ascribed  to  the  latter,  it 
is  not  original  and  independent,  but  only  as  they  are 
born  in  and  under  the  Union ;  out  of  connection  with  which, 
they  would  have  none.  Consequently,  separation  from  the 
Union  is  simply  felo  de  se.  We  do  not  remember  ever  to 
have  seen  a  more  complete  inversion  of  the  facts  of  history 


Secession  and  the  South.  31 

to  sustain  an  a  priori  theory.  The  discussion  narrows  itself 
down  to  a  single  point.  There  is  no  dispute  upon  the  fact 
that  sovereignty,  the  Jus  summi  imperii,  resides  in  the  people. 
But  the  dispute  is,  wliether  this  sovereignty  resides  in  the 
people  as  they  are,  merged  into  the  mass,  one  undivided 
whole;  or  in  the  people  as  they  were  originally  formed  into 
colonies,  and  afterwards  into  States,  combining  together 
for  purposes  distinctly  set  forth  in  their  instruments  of 
Union.  Dr.  Breckinridge  maintains  the  former  thesis ;  we 
defend  the  latter;  and  in  the  whole  controversy  upon  the 
legal  right  of  secession  this  is  the  "  cardo  causa.." 

What,  then,  is  the  testimony  of  history  ?  We  find  the 
first  Continental  Congress,  at  Xew  York,  in  1765,  called 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  composed  of  deputies  from  all  the  Colonial 
Assemblies  represented  therein.  We  find,  in  1773,  at  the 
instance  of  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  the  difterent 
Colonial  Assemblies  appointing  Standing  Committees  of 
Correspondence,  through  whom  a  confidential  communi- 
cation was  kept  up  between  the  Colonies.  We  find  the 
votes  in  the  Continental  Congress  of  1774,  at  Philadelphia, 
cast  by  Colonies,  each  being  restricted  to  one  only.  We 
find  in  the  celebrated  Declaration  of  Independence,  in 
1776,  "the  Representatives  of  the  United  States,  in  general 
Congress  assembled,"  publishing  and  declaring  "in  the 
name  and  by  the  authority  of  the  people  in  these  Colonies." 
We  find  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  matured  in  1777, 
remanded  to  the  local  Legislatures,  and  ratified  b}^  the  sev- 
eral States — by  Maryland,  not  until  1781.  The  circular  in 
which  this  form  of  confederation  was  submitted,  requests 
the  States  "to  authorize  their  delegates  in  Congress  to 
subscribe  the  same  in  behalf  of  the  State,"  and  solicits  the 
"  dispassionate  attention  of  the  legislatures  of  the  respect- 
ive States,  under  a  sense  of  the  difficulty  of  combining,  in 
one  general  system,  the  various  sentiments  and  interests  of 
a  continent,  divided  into  so  many  sovereign  and  indepen- 


32  A   Vindication  of 

dent  communities."  *  We  recite  these  familiar  facts  to 
show  that  during  the  first  period  of  our  history,  embracing 
the  revolutionary  struggle,  the  people  were  accustomed  to 
act,  not  as  an  organic  whole,  but  as  constituting  separate 
States,  and  combining  for  common  and  specified  ends.  In- 
deed, it  could  not  be  otherwise.  Upon  throwing  ofi'  their 
allegiance  to  the  British  crown,  and  the  sovereignty  revert- 
ing to  themselves,  they  were  not  destitute  of  a  political 
organization  through  which  to  act.  They  had  existed  as 
'organized,  though  not  independent,  communities  before. 
"What  more  natural,  in  their  transition  to  new  political  rela- 

/  tions,  than   to   stand  forth  the  communities  they  actually 

j  were  ?  ,  As  separate  Colonies  they  had  been  dependencies 
of  the  British  Crown :  when  that  dependence  was  thrown 
aside,  in  whom  could  the  original  sovereignty  reside,  but 
in  the  people,  who  were  now  no  longer  Colonies,  but  States 
— in  which  form  of  existence  the  people  are  first  presented 
to  our  view.  The  fact  that  they  combined  against  a  com- 
mon foe,  and  to  secure  their  independence  together,  does 
not  impeach  their  inherent  sovereignty.     It  remains  per- 

,■•  fectly  discretionary  with  them — that  is,  with  the  people,  as 
States — to  determine  how  much  of  this  sovereignty  they 
will   retain,  and   how   much   they  will  surrender,  in   the 

,  arrangements  afterwards  made.  In  the  language  of  Chief 
Justice  Jay,  quoted  by  Mr.  Story,  "  thirteen  sovereignties 
were  considered  as  emerging  from  the  principles  of  the 
Revolution,  combined  by  local  convenience  and  considera- 
tions— though  they  continued  to  manage  their  national  con- 
cerns as  '■  one  people.' 'J.  We  accordingly  reverse  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge's proposition;  we  are  not  "  one  JSTation  divided  into 
many  States,"  but  we  are  many  States  uniting  to  form  one 
!N"ation. 

But  let  us  see  how  the  matter  stands  from  the  period  of 
the  old  Confederation  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  Con- 

*  Story's  His.  of  the  Confederation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  212. 


Secession  and  the  South.  33 

stitution,  in  1787.  When  the  former  was  found  to  be 
breaking  down  from  its  own  imbecility,  and  the  necessity 
of  a  more  perfect  union  was  becoming  apparent,  it  is 
curious  to  see  how  the  pathway  was  opened  through  the 
ahiiost  accidental  action  of  State  Legislatures.  In  1785, 
cornmissioners  were  appointed  by  the  States  of  Virginia 
and  Maryland  to  form  a  scheme  for  promoting  the  naviga- 
tion of  the  River  Potomac  and  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  As 
they  felt  the  need  of  more  enlarged  powers  to  provide  a 
local  naval  force,  and  a  tariff  of  duties  upon  imports,  this 
grew  into  an  invitation  from  Virginia  to  the  other  States 
to  hold  a  Convention  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  a 
general  system  of  commercial  relations — and  this,  at  length, 
at  the  instance  of  !N^ew  York,  was  enlarged,  so  as  to  pro- 
vide for  the  revision  and  reform  of  the  articles  of  the  old 
Federal  compact.  Thus  grew  up,  by  successive  steps,  the 
Convention  which  met  at  Philadelphia  in  1787,  by  which 
the  present  Constitution  was  drafted,  submitted  to  Con- 
gress, as  the  common  organ  of  all  the  States,  and  by  it 
referred  for  ratification  to  these  States  respectively.  Here 
we  have  the  same  great  principle  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  as  they  are  States,  clearly  recognized.  The  tenta- 
tive efforts  towards  improving  the  interior  commercial  rela- 
tions of  the  country,  are  initiated  by  two  State  Legisla- 
tures ;  by  a  third,  a  Convention  of  Delegates  from  all  the 
States  is  suggested;  and  the  new  Constitution  is  finally 
debated  and  ratified  by  separate  Conventions  of  the  people 
in  each — North  Carolina  withholding  her  assent  till  1789, 
and  Rhode  Island  till  1790.  This  historical  review  seems, 
to  us,  conclusive  of  the  point  in  hand.  The  people — not  j  -*^ 
as  one,  but  as  thirt^eeii^revolt  from  the  English  yoke ;  ' 
because  only  as  thirteen,  and  not  as  one,  did  they  ever  owe 
allegiance.  The  people — not  as  one,  but  as  thirteen — unite 
to  carry  on  a  defensive  and  successful  war;  granting  to  the 
Continental  Congress  just  the  powers  they  saw  fit — neither 
more  nor  less — as  their  common  agent.     The  people — not 


%, 


34  A   Vindication  of 

as  one,  but  as  thirteen — prepare  and  adopt  Articles  of 
Confederation,  under  wliich  they  manage  their  common 
concerns  for  seven  years.  And  finally — not  as  one,  but  - 
again  as  thirteen — they  frame  and  adopt  a  permanent  Con- 
stitution ;  under  which  they  have  lived  for  seventy  years,  - 
and  have  grown  from  thirteen  to  thirty-four.  But  suppose 
the  two  dilatory  States,  which  withheld  their  assent  to 
the  Constitution  for  two  and  three  years,  had  withheld 
it  altogether — What  then  ?  Why,  says  Dr.  Breckinridge, 
"  they  would  have  passed  by  common  consent  into  a  new 
condition,  and  have  become,  for  the  first  time,  separate  sove- 
reign States." — (Disc,  p.  8.)  Yes,  truly,  if  by  ^'sejyarate" 
he  only  means  isolated ;  but  not  separate  in  the  sense  of 
being  distinct.  But  he  has  denied  sovereignty  to  any  State, 
"except  as  they  are  United  States."  How,  then,  shall  these 
two  States,  who,  by  supposition,  refused  to  be  united,  be- 
come sovereign  ?  "By  common  consent,"  says  Dr.  Breck- 
inridge, "  they  will  pass  into  that  condition."  But  on  what 
is  this  common  consent  to  be  based?  Why  not  coerce 
them  into  Union,  if  the  people  is  one  Nation,  and  these 
States  are  fractions  of  that  unit?  '  Certainly  it  is  just  be- 
cause their  refusal  to  concur  w^ould  be  an  exercise  of  sove- 
reignty, and  it  must  needs  be  recognized  as  such.  Yet, 
if  the  refusal  to  concur  would  be  an  act  of  sovereignty, 
then,  by  equality  of  reason,  was  their  agreement  to  con-  > 
cur  an  act  of  sovereignty.  In  either  case,  the  people  of 
these  two  States — and  so  of  all  the  others — were  antece- 
dently and  distinctively  sovereign ; \and  hence,  could  not. 
owe  their  sovereignty  to  the  Union  which  they  themselves  „ 
created.,'  It  is  reasoning  in  a  circle,  to  say  that  the  States 
are  sovereign  only  as  they  are  United  States,  when  by  thp 
force  of  the  term,  as  well  as  by  the  express  testimony  of 
history,  they  are  united  only  by  a  Union  which  is  created 
in  the  exercise  of  that  sovereignty.  We  commend  this 
fact  to  the  attention  of  Consolidationists ;  that  tw^o  States 
did,  for  the  term  of  three  years,  delay  to  come  into  the  ./ 


^  ^  -'-^   ■     .^ 

.  Secession,- and  Die  South.  35 

Union  under  tlie    Constitution,  although  they  were  pre-    >/ii4/  (M 
viously  in  it  under  the  Confederation.     It   clearly  proves  .Vuzv^i^ 
that  the  people  formed  the  Constitution  as  States,  and  not    tii^(^  j 
>    as  a  consolidated  Nation :    and  that  these  States  were  not    ^  (/\4/[ 
merely  election  districts,  into  which  the  one  Nation  was   /  '  ^  . 
conveniently   distributed — but  were   organized  communi- 
ties, invested  with   the  highest   attributes  of  sovereignty, 
which   they  exercised    again  and  again,  by  and   through 
their  supreme  Conventions.  [If  as  Sl^itos  they  could  legally':  v/  . 
refuse  to  come  into  the  Union,  why  may  they  not  as  legally  |      //'  4 
withdraw  from  it  1/  Upon  the  law  maxim,  "  expressio  unius      (  .:^i 
est  exclusio  alterius,"  this  attribute  of  sovereignty  remains,    ;-' 
unless  in  the  instrument  it  can  be  shown  to  be  explicitly 
resigned. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  before  and  at  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  the  States  were  independent  and  sove- 
reign. Have  they  ceased  to  be  such  by  their  assent  to  that 
instrument  ?  Or,  is  the  Federal  Union  simply  a  covenant 
between  the  people  of  these  States  for  mutual  benefits, 
and  under  conditions  that  are  distinctly  entered  into  the 
bond  ?  Let  us  see.  Much  stress  is  laid  upon  the  use  of 
the  words,  "the  people,"  in  the  preamble  of  the  Constitu- 
tion— conveying,  it  is  alleged,  the  idea  of  an  undivided 
nationality.  It  is,  however,  a  plain  canon  of  interpreta- 
tion, that  particular  terms  are  to  be  explained  by  the  con- 
text in  which  they  occur.  This  preamble  further  states, 
that  "we  the  people,"  are  "the  people  of  the  United 
States;"  a  title  evidently  intended  to  embody  the  history 
of  the  formation  of  the  Union  as  a  Congressus  of  States,  . 
which,  by  aggregation,  make  up  one  People.  In  proof  of 
this,  it  is  a  title  simply  transferred  from  the  old  Confedera- 
tion, when  no  one  denies  that  the  States  were  separate  and 
independent.  This  fact  is  conclusive.  As  the  Nation  is 
formed  by  the  confluence  of  States,  a  periphrastic  title  is 
given,  which  defines  the  character  of  this  nationality,  as 
not  being  consolidated,  but  federative.     It  is  not  a  little 


/ 


36  A   Vindication  of 

remarkable,  that  no  other  title  is  employed  throughout  the 
Constitution,  but  this  of  "United  States;"  the  composition 
of  which,  historically,  describes  confederation,  and  dis- 
criminates against  consolidation.  How  does  it  happen,  if 
the  idea  of  a  nation,  as  composed  of  individuals,  simply 
districted  into  States,  is  the  fundamental  idea,  not  only  that 
a  baptismal  name  was  withheld  which  should  embody  that 
conception,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  a  composite  title  was 
given,  which  marks  j^^^ecisely  the  opposite  ? 

Let  us  now  pass  from  the  vestibule,  and  examine  the 
frame-work  of  the  Constitution  itself.  The  first  section  of 
Article  I.  vests  the  Legislative  power  in  a  Congress,  con- 
sisting of  two  Chambers,  a  Senate  and  House  of  Represen- 
tatives. In  the  latter,  population  is  represented.  But 
what  population  ?  the  people  of  the  I^ation  as  a  unit,  or 
the  people  of  the  States?  Unquestionably,  the  latter:  for 
Section  4  provides  that  "the  time,  places,  and  manner  of 
holding  the  election  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by 
the  Legislature  thereof."  Should  a  vacancy  occur,  "writs 
of  election  are  to  be  issued  by  the  executive  authority  of 
each  State./''  Thus  the  States,  individually,  direct  the  elec- 
tion, and  count  and  declare  the  vote.  Plainly,  this  is  done 
by  the  States,  either  as  mere  election  districts,  or  else  as 
organized  communities,  in  the  exercise  of'a  supreme  right. 
In  addition  to  what  has  already  been  urged,  the  fact  of 
apportioning  these  Representatives  to  the  States  respect- 
ively, according  to  the  population  of  each,  concludes 
against  the  theory  that  the  people  are  fused  into  the  mass, 
and  determines  for  the  idea  that,  under  the  Constitution, 
as  before  its  adoption,  the  people  represented  are  the  peo- 
ple of  the  States  in  Congress  assembled.  In  the  Senate, 
the  case  is  still  clearer,  for  these  States  are  represented  as 
such,  all  being  placed  upon  the  same  footing,  the  largest 
having  no  more  power  than  the  least.  If  we  turn  to  the 
Executive  branch  of  the  Government,  the  President  and 
Vice  President  are  chosen  by  the  people,  indeed,  but  still 


Secession  and  the  South.  37 

by  the  people  as  constituting  States.  The  electors  must 
equal  in  number  the  representation  which  the  State  enjoys 
in  Congress ; j and  they  must  be  chosen  in  such  manner  as. 
each  State,  tbrough  its  Legislature,  shall  determine. — (Con. 
Art.  II.)  Should  the  election  fail  with  the  people,  it  must 
go  into  the  Congressional  House  of  Representatives,  with 
the  remarkable  provision,  that  the  "  vote  is  there  to  be 
taken  by  States,  the  representation  from  each  State  having 
one  vote."  Why  so  ?  if  not  to  forestall  the  possibility, 
through  the  inequality  of  the  States  in  that  Chamber,  of  a 
President  being  chosen  by  a  numerical  majority  merel}^, 
without  being  chosen  by  a  concurrent  majority  of  the 
States  ?  We  submit  to  the  candor  of  the  reader,  if  these 
constitutional  provisions  arc  not  framed  upon  the  concep- 
tion that  the  people  are  contemplated  as  States,  and  not  as 
condensed  into  a  Nation.  If  this  latter  were  the  funda- 
mental idea,  could  arrangements  be  made  more  effectively 
to  conceal  or  to  cancel  it  ? 

But  it  is  urged  that,  in  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,! 
the  States  have  remitted,  in  great  part,  their  sovereignty  ;L 
and  have  clothed  the  General  Government  with  supreme; 
authority  in  the  powers  they  have  conferred./  "Congress 
shall  have  power,"  says  the  Constitution  (Sec.  8,  Art.  I.), 
"to  levy  and  collect  taxes,  to  regulate  commerce,  to  coin 
money,  to  declare  war,  to  negotiate  peace,"  and  the  like; 
all  which,  it  is  alleged,  are  the  acts  of  a  sovereign.  Pre- 
cisely so:  Congress  shall  have  the  executive  i^oioer ;  but  the 
Constitution  does  not  say  the  Jnherent  right.  The  distinc- 
tion between  these  two  goes  to'  the  bottom  of  the  case,  and 
will  clear  up  much  prevalent  misconception.  The  people 
of  the  States  have  not  parted  with  one  jot  or  tittle  of  their 
original  sovereignty/''  According  to  primitive  republicanism, 
it  is  impossible  they  should  do  so.  It  exists  unimpaired, 
just  where  it  always  resided,  in  the  People  constituting 
Sttites.X But  these  States,  sustaining  many  relations  to  each 
other  and  to  foreign   nations,   concur  to   manage  those 


WT  W>  i  : '  •  /J  llL   A   Vindication  of  ^xc-  i^-tvndiy  '^a/jH*^\/\ 

I    4U/tj     external  matters  iu  common.     In  their  confederation  for 
'^  this  purpose,  they  create   an  organ  common  to  them  all. 
•^^^Cl^iTo  that  agent  they  confide  certain  trusts,  which  are  par- 
jf y  ffl     ticularly  enumerated ;    and  that  it  may  be  competent  to  ^ 

discharge  the  same,  they  invest  it  with  certain  powers, 
''"    which  are  carefully  d'efined.     They  consent  to  put  a  limita- 
^/^^-tyii  tion  upon  the  exercise  of  their  individual  sovereignty,  so 
^^'t^i^C^    far  as  to  abstain  from  the  functions  assigned  to  this  com- 
"  :  mon  agent./  They  come  under  a  mutual  pledge  to  recognize; 
^-,    ,'/  '/and  to  sustain  this  established  Constitution,  quoad  its  pur-i 
!^</.'V?  tC^poses,  as  the  paramount  law.     But  all  this  by  no  means^  v 
/y,-^  f        implies  the  delegation  of  their  sovereignty  to  the  General^ 
Government.     Power  is  often  conferred  upon  municipal 
corporations  to  perform   certain   functions   pertaining    to 
sovereignty — as,  for  example,  the  power  of  taxation.     But 
who  ever  dreamed  that  these  corporations   became  thus 
zp5o /ado  sovereigns;  or  that  the  State,  in  conferring  such 
charters,  remitted  any  portion  of  its  supremacy  ?     In  like 
manner,  the'^eyeral  States,  in  granting  these  powers  to 
_  11^-^         Congress,  granted  them  in  trust,  for  purposes  purely  exec- 
^    fej/y    1  utive  :  \retaining  the  right  inherent  in  themselves  to  revoke  « 

V  ]h  vj  these  powers,  and  to  cancel  at  will  the  instrument  by  which 
■  they  are  conveyed.  /  We  confess  our  inability  to  under- 
stand this  doctrine  of  a  double  sovereignty :  a  sovereignty  fT' 
which,  while  it  is  delegated  to  the  General  Government,  is 
nevertheless  supreme  ;  and  a  sovereignty  which,  while  it 
is  retained  by  the  States  as  a  part  of  their  original  inher- 
/  itance,  is  nevertheless  subordinate.  ■  The  very  terms  of 
either  proposition  appear  to  be  solecisms.  Sovereignty, 
however  limited  it  may  be  in  actual  exercise,  is  simple,  and 
incapable  of  distribution.  It  is  a  still  greater  contradiction 
to  speak  of  a  sovereign  who  is  under  subjection  to  a  superior 
authority.  We  can  very  well  understand  how  several  sove- 
reignties shall  unite  upon  schemes  which  can  only  be 
executed  by  a  restraint  voluntarily  imposed ;  but  not  how 
they  shall  create  a  power  that  is  superior  to  them  all.     Ac- 


Secession  and  the  South.  39 

cordingly,  we  find  the  Constitution  providing  in  its  very 
last  article  for  "the  establishment  of  this  Constitntion" — 
not  over,  but  ^'■between — the  States  ratitying  the  same."  The 
distinction  between  these  two  propositions  is  not  meta- 
physical, but  immensely  practical  and  substantive.  The 
first  would  establish  the  government  of  a  superior  over 
subjects  who  obey ;  the  second  establishes  a  common  law. 
between  equals  who  recognize  and  sustain.  Still  more 
emphatic  is  the  tenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
which  specifies  that  !"all  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to , 
the  people."  This  betrays  the  jealousy  which  watched  over 
the  formation  of  the  Union;  showing  the  grant  to  the  Gen- 
eral Government  to  be  a  grant  of  specified  and  executive 
powers;  while  all  the  rest  remains,  by  inherent  right,  with 
the  States  in  their  local  and  permanent  organization,  or 
with  the  people  of  those  States  in  their  primal  and  inalien- 
able sovereignty. 

This  exposition  of  the  relation  of  the  States  to  the  Fed- 
eral Union,  is  confirmed  by  the  debates  in  the  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution,  in  1787.  Aware  of  the 
weakness  of  the  existing  Confederation,  it  is  not  strange 
that  a  party  arose  desirous  of  strengthening  the  central 
power.  It  was  urged  against  the  new  Constitution,  that 
no  tribunal  was  erected  to  determine  controversies  which 
might  arise  between  the  States  and  the  Xation.  The  Su- 
preme Court  was  restricted  in  its  jurisdiction  to  causes  in 
law  and  equity,  and  could  not  adjudicate  political  dift'er- 
ences.  The  proposition  was,  therefore,  submitted  to  extend 
its  powers,  so  as  to  make  it  the  arbiter  of  all  issues  that 
might  arise.  It  did  not,  however,  prevail  so  as  to  be  articu- 
lated into  the  Constitution.  Of  course,  the  States  were 
thrown  back  upon  the  great  principle  of  international 
law,  that  every  sovereign  must  decide  for  himself  in  con- 
troverted issues,  under  a  sense  of  responsibility  to  the 
opinion  of  mankind,  and  the  verdict  of  impartial  history. 


40  A   Vindication  of 

To  show  still  further  the  relation  of  the  States  to  the 
Union,  we  will  cite  another  fact.  Three  resolutions  were 
introduced  into  the  Convention,  the  first  declaring  "that  a 
Union  of  the  States  merely  federal  will  not  accomplish  the 
objects  proposed  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation;"  the 
1  second,  "that  no  treaty  or  treaties  between  the  States,  as 
sovereign,  will  secure  the  common  defence  ;"  the  third, 
"  that  a  national  government  ought  to  be  established,"  *  etc. 
The  first  two  resolutions  were  immediately  tabled ;  the  third 
was  adopted;  but  afterwards,  in  the  course  of  debate, 
undue  stress  being  laid  upon  the  word  "national,"  it  was 
changed  into  "the  government  of  the  United  States/'f 

Another  method  was  proposed,  to  provide  for  the  danger 
of  collision  between  the  Federal  and  State  authorities. 
The  sixth  of  Gov.  Randolph's  famous  fifteen  resolutions, 
empowered  "  the  Federal  Executive  to  call  forth  the  force 
of  the  Union  against  any  member  of  the  Union,  failing  to 
fulfil  his  duties  under  the  articles  thereof."  %  This  sugges- 
tion utterly  failed  to  secure  the  assent  of  the  Convention, 
and  the  resolution  was  abridged  as  to  this  feature  of  it. 
The  strongest  Centralists  in  the  body,  as  Mr.  Madison  and 
Mr.  Hamilton,  repudiated  the  principle,  as  tantamount  to  a 
declaration  of  war  and  a  dissolution  of  the  Union,  and 
utterly  repugnant  to  the  genius  and  spirit  of  this  Govern- 
ment. We  can  not  burthen  this  article  with  the  citation 
of  authorities.  These  general  facts  are  sulficient  to  show 
the  view  taken  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  as  to 
the  relations  between  the  States  and  the  central  authority. 
They  are  of  no  little  significance,  at  a  time  like  this,  when 
so  many  are  clamoring  for  the  coercion  of  the  South, 
whether  it  be  a  coercion  of  laws  or  a  coercion  of  arrns.  The 
puerile  distinction  had  not  occurred  to  these  wise  men  of 
a  past  age,  between  coercing  a  State  and  the  coercion  of 
its  citizens  alone  :    a  distinction  perfectly  legitimate,  when 

*  Elliott's  Debates,  Yol.  I.,  p.  391.  f  Ibid.,  p.  427.         %  •^^^'^•»  P-  144. 


Secession  and  the  South.  41 

a  State  professes  to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Union, 
and  unlawful  combinations  of  individuals  exist  to  resist  the 
same  ;  but  a  distinction  utterly  impertinent,  when  the  State 
asserts  her  sovereign  jurisdiction  over  her  citizens,  and 
disclaims  an}^  longer  participation  in  the  Federal  Union. 
Manifestly,  if  a  State,  while  iu  the  Union,  may  not  be 
coerced  by  federal  power,  without  its  "  being  tantamount 
to  a  declaration  of  war;"  then,  ex  foriiori,  she  may  not  be 
coerced,  when  by  her  sovereign  act  the  bonds  have  been 
sundered  by  which  she  was  held  under  the  compact,  and 
she  stands  wholly  without  the  pale  of  the  Union. 

The  longest  argument  must  have  an  end.  We  advert, 
finally,  to  the  notorious  fact,  that  in  the  very  act  of  ratifying 
this  Constitution,  three  States  asserted  their  sovereign  right 
to  resume  the  powers  they  had  delegated.  jN'ew  York 
declared  "that  the  powers  of  government  may  be  reassumed 
by  the  people  whenever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their 
happiness :"  *  and  further  indicates  what  people  she  means, 
by  speaking,  in  the  same  connection,  of  the  residuary  power 
and  jurisdiction  in  the  people  of  the  State,  not  granted  to 
the  General  Government.  The  delegates  from  Virginia 
"declare  and  make  known,  in  the  name  and  in  the  behalf 
of  the  people  of  Virginia,  that  the  powers  granted  under 
the  Constitution,  being  derived  from  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  may  be  resumed  by  them,  whensoever  the 
same  shall  be  perverted  to  their  injury  and  oppression."  f 
In  like  manner,  Rhode  Island  protests  against  the  remission 
of  her  right  of  resumption.  And  while  the  language  is  not 
so  explicit  as  that  of  Kew  York,  the  meaning  is  precisely 
the  same  ;  for,  as  the  original  grantor  of  these  powers  was 
the  people  of  the  States,  and  not  the  collective  people  of 
the  country  at  large,  the  former  alone  had  the  right  to 
reassume.  The  other  States  made  no  such  declarations. 
Indeed,  as  the  right  lay  in  the  very  nature  and  history  of 

*  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  I.,  p.  327.  f  Ibid. 

6 


42  A   Vindication  of 

the  federation,  tliey  could  be  made  by  these  three  only  in 
the  way  of  superabundant  caution.  This  right,  so  solemnly 
asserted  seventy  years  ago,  has  been  sleeping  upon  the 
records  of  the  country.  It  is  now  brought  into  exercise  by 
seven  States,  and  the  issue  can  no  longer  be  blinked.  If 
the  insane  advice  gratuitously  tendered  in  this  pamphlet 
should  be  followed  by  the  Federal  authorities,  the  war  that 
ensues  will  be  a  war  of  principle  as  well  as  of  passion:  and 
the  South  will  know  that  she  is  contending  against  tyranny 
in  theory,  as  well  as  tyranny  in  practice. 

It  would  thus  appear  the  doctrine  of  withdrawal  from  the 
Union  is  not  so  novel  as  it  has  been  supposed  by  those  who 
scout  it  as  monstrous.  Let  us  see  if  it  has  not  made  its 
appearance  more  than  once  in  the  history  of  the  country. 
When  Mr.  Jefferson  was  made  Secretary  of  State,  after  his 
return  from  France,  he  was  warmly  importuned  by  Mr. 
Hamilton  to  throw  his  influence  in  favor  of  the  assumption 
of  the  State  debts,  in  order  to  save  the  Union  from  threat- 
ened dissolution.  "He,"  says  Mr.  Jeflerson,  "painted 
pathetically  the  temper  into  which  the  legislature  had  been 
wrought ;  the  disgust  of  those  who  were  called  the  creditor 
States ;  the  danger  of  the  secession  of  their  members,  and 
the  separation  of  the  States;"*  which  was  only  averted  by 
bringing  over  two  of  the  Virginia  delegation  (White  and 
Lee)  to  support  the  measure.  At  a  later  period,  the  passage 
of  the  Embargo  Act,  it  is  well  known,  inflamed  the  'New 
England  States  to  the  highest  degree ;  so  that  on  the  floor 
of  Congress  it  was  declared,  "they  were  repining  for  a 
secession  from  the  Union."  In  the  Hartford  Convention, 
at  which  five  of  the  Eastern  States  were  represented,  the 
report  which  was  adopted  uses  the  following  language : 
"Whenever  it  shall  appear  that  these  causes  are  radical 
and  permanent,  a  separation  by  equitable  arrangement  will 
be  preferable  to  an  alliance  by  constraint  among  nominal 

*  Irving's  Life  of  Washington,  Vol.  V.,  p.  61. 


Secession  and  the  South.  43 

friends,  but  real  enemies,  inflamed  by  mutual  batred  and 
jealousy,"  etc.  A2:ain  :  "In  cases  of  deliberate,  dangerous 
and  palpable  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  attecting  the 
sovereignty  of  a  State  and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  it  is 
not  only  the  right,  but  the  duty,  of  such  a  State  to  inter- 
pose its  authority  for  their  protection,  in  the  manner  best 
calculated  to  secure  that  end.  When  emergencies  occur 
which  are  beyond  the  reach  of  the  judicial  tribunals,  or  too 
l^ressing  to  admit  of  the  delay  incident  to  their  forms, 
States,  which  have  no  common  umpire,  must  be  their  own 
judges,  and  execute  their  own  decisions."  It  is  a  little 
curious  that  these  avowals  of  the  right  of  secession  should 
come  from  the  very  section  which  is  most  chargeable  with 
begetting  the  present  schism:  and  that  the  very  people 
now  most  ready  to  arm  themselves  for  the  coercion  of  the 
South  could  plead  for  an  equitable  and  peaceful  separation, 
so  long  as  it  was  meditated  by  themselves.  The  infamy 
attaching  to  the  Hartford  Convention  springs  not  from 
their  exposition  of  political  doctrine,  but  from  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  cause  impelling  them  to  a  breach  of  com- 
pact, and  from  the  want  of  patriotism  which  could  med- 
itate such  a  step  when  the  country  was  in  the  midst  of  a 
war  with  a  foreign  enemy. 

We  have  thus  argued  the  legal  right  of  secession,  witli- 
out  touching  upon  its  moral  aspect.  Regarding  the  Uniou 
in  the  light  of  a  compact,  it  is  not  lightly  to  be  broken, 
framed  for  such  purposes,  and  under  such  circumstances, 
it  was  a  covenant  peculiarly  sacred,  which  could  not  be  set 
aside  without  guilt  somewhere.  In  this  regard,  the  seced- 
ing South  is  prepared  to  carry  her  cause  before  the  world, 
and  before  God.  When  the  Union  had  failed  in  all  the 
ends  for  which  it  was  instituted — neither  "  establishing  jus- 
tice, ensuring  domestic  tranquillity,  promoting  the  general 
welfare,  nor  securing  the  blessings  of  liberty;"  when  these 
delegated  powers  were  perverted  into  powers  of  oppression 
and  injury;  when  the  compact  had  flagrantly,  and  with 


44  A   Vindication  of 

impunity,  been  broken  by  the  other  parties  to  it;  then  it 
became  the  South  to  assert  her  last  right,  that  of  a  peace- 
ful withdrawal  from  the  partnership.  If  to  her  other 
wrongs  this  last  and  most  atrocious  of  them  all,  an  attempt 
at  her  forcible  subjugation,  is  to  be  added,  then  will  her 
defence  be  as  complete  as  an  injured  people  ever  carried 
over  to  the  judgment  of  posterity.  On  this,  however,  we 
will  not  enlarge.  It  will  be  seen  that,  upon  the  legal  aspects 
of  the  question,  we  are  at  antipodes  with  the  writer,  whose 
essay  we  have  reviewed.  He  affirms  the  people  to  be  one, 
divided  into  many :  we,  that  they  are  many,  united  into 
one.  He  ascribes  sovereignty  to  the  Union :  we,  to  the 
States.  He  regards  the  Constitution  as  creating  a  govern- 
ment which  is  over  the  States  :  we  regard  it  as  a  common 
law  established  between  the  States.  In  his  view,  "any 
attempt  to  throw  off  this  national  allegiance,  in  any  legal, 
in  any  constitutional,  in  any  historical  light,  is  pure  mad- 
ness :"  in  our  view,  in  every  legal,  constitutional,  or  his- 
torical light,  there  is  no  allegiance  to  be  thrown  off,  and 
consequently  there  is  no  madness  in  the  case.  He  affirms 
secession  to  be  rebellion,  which  must  be  suppressed  at 
every  hazard:  we,  that  it  is  an  inherent  right  of  sovereignty, 
which  can  not  be  disallowed  without  an  international  war. 
Let  the  reader  put  the  two  into  his  own  scales,  and  decide 
for  himself. 

We  rise  from  this  discussion  under  the  profound  convic- 
tion that  the  separation  of  this  country  into  two  govern- 
ments was  inevitable:  simply  because,  from  the  beginning, 
two  nations  have  with  us  been  in  the  womb — and  the  birth, 
-however  long  delayed,  must  come  at  length.    From  its  very 
formation,  two  antagonistic  interpretations  of  the  Constitu- 
tion have  prevailed,  which  have  just  been  presented  in 
contrast.     The  final  issue  would  naturally  be  deferred,  as 
this   and   the    other   struggled   for  the  ascendency.     But 
/whenever,   through   the   expansion  of  territory,    and   the 
;  consequent  increase  of  patronage,  the  political  prizes  should 


Secession  and  the  South.  45 

become  too  great  for  the  virtue  of  our  people ;  and  when- 
ever sectional  jealousies  should  arise,  springing  from  dift'er- 
ent  forms  of  society,  and  opposite  systems  of  labor,  the  ' 
time  has  arrived  for  deciding  whether  the  Federal  Ex-  ' 
ecutive  is  a  servant  or  a  sovereign.  Had  the  former  view 
prevailed,  the  Union  might  have  been  perpetual.  Had 
the  Constitution  been  regarded  as  a  compact  whose  bonds 
were  mutual  honor  and  good  faith,  the  apprehension  of  a 
rupture  would  have  been  the  surest  guarantee  of  its 
observance.  The  very  feebleness  of  the  bond  would  have 
been  its  strength,  as*  the  exquisite  sensibility  of  the  eye 
constitutes  the  greatest  protection  of  that  organ.  The 
predominance  of  the  opposite  theory  has  wrought  the 
existing  anarchy  of  which  our  author  so  loudly  complains. 
Just  because  the  States  have  been  regarded  as  provinces, 
which,  if  rebellious,  could  be  dragooned  into  submission,  , 
the  North  has  been  tempted,  through  its-  numerical  ma-  l. 
jority,  to  sectional  aggression;  from  which,  under  the  other  ; 
view,  it  would  have  been  restrained  by  ever}^  considerations 
of  honor  and  interest.  Dr.  Breckinridge,  in  his  zeal  against 
anarchy,  has  not  preserved  us  from  despotism,  towards 
which  this  countr}^  has  already  made  fearfull}^  rapid  strides. 
"We  have  always  admired  the  gigantic  scale  upon  which 
his  shadow  has  ever  been  cast.  It  has  been  no  mean  proof 
of  his  transcendent  genius,  that  in  the  display  of  even  the 
smallest  weaknesses  of  our  nature,  he  has  ever  succeeded 
in  redeeming  them  from  contempt,  and  of  lifting  them 
almost  into  the  sublime.  So  now,  when  he  would  provide 
for  the  final  destruction  of  this  Republic,  it  is  upon  a  scale 
of  grandeur  that  would  make  her  fall  only  second  to  that 
of  ancient  Rome.  We  will  not  recall  to  his  memory  the 
steps  by  which  that  grand  Republic  slipped  into  an  Empire; 
nor  how  the  legions  of  Gaul,  or  of  the  East,  or  the  Pretoriau 
Guards  at  home,  elevated  successively  their  puppets — until 
the  distant  barriers  were  swept  over  by  barbarian  hordes, 
burying  all  civilization  beneath  the  flood.     But  we  will 


46  A   Vindication  of  Secession  and  the  South. 

remind   him   that  one   Rome  is  enough  for  one  World. 
"With  her  instructive  history  before  him,  let  him  not  push 
this  Republic  forth  upon  the  same  career,  first  of  imperial 
grandeur,    and   then   of  a  disintegration   that  will   prove 
universal  and  frightful.      We  are  not  anarchists  upon  a 
scale  like  that.     We  are  conservative  enough  to  reef  the 
sails   of  our  ship  before  she  drives  upon  the  rock,  and 
founders  in  the  sea,  with  tlie  loss  of  her  treasures.     We 
will  put  out  the  long-boat,  and  separate  in  time  to  save  and 
perpetuate  those  republican  principles  which  are  dear  to 
our  hearts. 
f'    We  wish  the  reader  to  observe  that,  whenever  the  ques- 
tion comes  up  for  decision,  whether  this  is  to  be  a  Republic 
or  an  Empire,  this  country  is  obliged  to  split  in  two  parts. 
:'  This  question  happens  to  have  mixed  itself  up  with  that  of 
slavery,  the  issue  upon  which  a  sectional  party  has  suc- 
ceeded in  carrying  the  Government  by  assault.    But  if  there 
'■  had  not  been  an  African  on  this  continent,  this  political 
I  difference  must  sooner  or  later  have  worked  out  the  result 
I  which  has  occurred.     Dr.  Breckinridge  is  to  all  intents  an 
imperialist.      He  has  gone  off   upon  the  old  notions   of 
former  ages,  which  doom  this  Republic  to  be  a  failure — 
and  a  failure  the  more  stupendous  the  longer  it  should 
happen  to  last.  !  If  there  be  no  other  bonds  holding  these 
;  States  together  but  those  of  central  force  and  coercion, 
then,  with  all  our  boasting,  we  have  solved  no  problem  in 
politics,  and  made  no  contribution  to  histor3^      But  our 
conviction  is,  that  the  American  problem  is  being  worked 
out  for  good,  and  not  for  evil.     The  future  historian  will 
look  back  upon  this  movement  of  secession  as  the  move- 
ment which  rescued  the  whole  country  just  as  it  was  slip- 
ping into  an  empire— i-an  empire  to  be  shattered  at  last, 
/after  the  manner  of  all  the  empires  of  the  earth — and  least 
^  of  all  to  be  endured  upon  this  continent,  where  it  is  an 
utter  apostacy  from  the  political  faith  of  our  fathers. 


pH8.5 


